User talk:Casliber/Archive 25

Template-y thing

• poke — I replied @ User talk:Jack Merridew#Template-y thing

…is protected; undo fo’ a bit an’ I fiddles wit’ it

see also

• User talk:Lar#my edits to the main page

Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done [1] — I didn't know that unprotection could be set to expire. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

When Wish Replaces Thought

Given that this article consists of only (i) vague and unattributed praise of the book from the book's own blurb & (ii) unsourced praise of Goldberg, what material do you consider it contains that is worthy of merging? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I have made no comment and have no opinion as yet. I placed the templates there to stop the reverting and to open up a platform for discussion. Make your case at the appropriate template as I am sure others will. Then consensus can be achieved by discussion - proposed mergers are generally held open for a month before consensus is determined. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Formal Mediation for Sports Logos

As a contributor to Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/RFC_on_use_of_sports_team_logos, you have been included in a request for formal mediation regarding the subject at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Use of Sports Logos. With your input and agreement to work through mediation, it is hoped we can achieve a lasting solution. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

RFAR/Obama

Hey. I'm watching the RFAR proposed decision for the case and I'm obviously a little bit peeved about how it's currently panning out: i.e. how relatively lightly Stevertigo seems to be getting off for starting this kerfuffle, or alternately, how hard you're coming down on me and Scjessey. I'm actually here to ask you why you think the 1RR/week would be such a good idea on me. It seems a bit punitive for, as the FOF shows, one edit-war and the prevention of disruption elsewhere (and a bit of incivility, but we both know that sanctioning just for being a bit snarky is not a good idea). That, and you should already know that as a content writer and someone who takes an interest wrt fiction it would make it basically impossible to edit Doctor Who articles for the next series and a half because I'd have to jump through hoops just to revert silly IPs who include obviously inappropriate content on these pages (seriously, find me a Doctor Who episode article that hasn't had to be protected for a week or so after transmission, and besides, editors often go above three reverts trying to combat the wave of not-vandalism-but-also-not-appropriate material). The only reason I can think of for such a restriction is to create the perception of impartiality: well, it doesn't seem to be working when the same sanction is proposed for people who were disruptively editing and for people who were trying to uphold BLP. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Right, (a) I am happy to semi-protect articles from vandalism, so you can ping me on these. (b) other arbs have not started voting en masse as we are still wading through a slew of active cases (and other issues) currently. (c) You have a history of being confrontational with other editors and really need to tone it down. Given past track record, you might want to reconsider you complaint, however, I am taking into account what you say and I strongly suspect some ongoing discussion of these remedies. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I still think that the 1RR/week sanctions are way too punitive. I'd accept a 1RR if it was for Barack Obama only, or even if it was for just any Obama articles... but to apply it site-wide is basically stupid. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm one of the prolific contributors for a WikiProject where registered users sometimes need to bend 3RR and break the letter of the policy in favour of the spirit. Case in point: this. Very few articles get 510 edits in 53 hours, even current events and ITN items. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: WP:GAN

Great to see you coming up on my watchlist editing Banksia articles. I've been too busy in real life to do much here, lately; I've made only one edit of any substance in the last nine days. :-( But I am still lurking when I get the chance. When real life pressures ease, I'll get back into it, and when I do I'll be happy to push against B. prionotes for a while.

B. sessilis isn't ready; the ecology section in particular needs work; I put a to-do list on the talk page a while ago, which will give you any idea of what I think it is lacking. Every time I come back to the article, I am drawn to the numerous redlinks in the taxonomic arrangements, and end up going off to write articles on infra-generic taxa e.g. D. ser. Ilicinae... which, if you think about it, is actually moving the B. sessilis article in the right direction, albeit in a small way, because FAs are supposed to have a minimum of red links. Even though it might seem that I've forgotten this article, it is still one of my pet projects.

Aside from the ecology section, Banksia cuneata is looking nice; that might be worth pushing towards FA some time.

Hesperian 13:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, a leisurely-paced production line it is then :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds June newsletter

The June 2009 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 13:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Luton Town F.C.

Brought in line with your recommendations. :) Cliftonian • talk 14:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

What would you recommend for FAC? Is it just the prose needs work? Thanks for the GA review by the by. :) Cliftonian • talk 09:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Guaiabero

Hi Cas, What do you need on it. I might have just annecdotal stuff from my contacts in Phils, but other than that! I imagine that you have heard that it has been pretty much established that they nest in termite mounds?--Steve Pryor (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Guaiabero follow-up

Cas, I still have the text to this article in BirdingAsia 8 (because I was one of the proofreaders before publication): Three nests of the Guaiabero Bolbopsittacus lunulatus N. T. B. ROSELL II, R. OCON, C. S. MALLARI, L. ROBLEDO & I. MAPUA

I will have to search my HDD, and find it. Will send it on to you through your e-mail (if still valid), though I don't know if I can attach files directly though the e-mail function from the wiki.

Steve--Steve Pryor (talk) 08:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic! much appreciated. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Eupoecila australasiae

On June 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eupoecila australasiae, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Giants27 09:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

LTFC

Hi. Saw your note. I've only had time for a quick flick through. It's well on the way. A few things jumped out:

1. Mix of singular and plural applicable to the club (this should really have been sorted for GA!) Cf the opening sentences of the lead and first section. Lots of ways to fix this. One I've used on FAs is to refer to the club as a singular, like any organisation, but the team as that peculiar English English plural. Whatever, it must be consistent.  Done
2. Some lack of rigorous referencing - consider the para that begins "Luton joined the Football League". It may well be that one ref covers everything, but when the article's edited by others and new stuff is introduced, it'll be split up. Significant claims must be individually reffed. See also "This plan was very unpopular with both Luton Town supporters and the local authorities, and never got off the ground." !!!! Pure fanzine stuff without a ref.  Done
3. Some WP:PEACOCKing and POV liberal use of adjectives going on (see for example the caption for the orange kit in Club Identity)  Done
4. List of managers is POV. Why exclude the ones with less than 50 matches? Who set that arbitrary figure and why?

There is a link to the main page for Luton Town managers, the reason behind that is to save space. It was an idea taken from York City, a featured article. Cliftonian • talk

1. Similar for the list of honours - this is easier to deal with, using a RS definition of major honours in football
2. ...but being a semi-finalist is not an "honour"  Done
3. Not sure if footnote A contravenes OR - I'd personally not mind it, but others may?

Surely it isn't OR if I take attendances published in the programme and calculate them myself? I'll add refs to where I got the attendances. Cliftonian • talk

1. Items reffed in "Bailey" have no page numbers

The book is an A4 stats book. It consists of stats on each season across two pages each. It would be much easier (and helpful) to give the Chapter title, as I have done. Cliftonian • talk

1. Why has the club been looking for a new site since 1955?  Done
2. Reorder stadia section so the chronology works better. Insufficient detail on old ones - (especially as no links are provided) why did they move?  Done
3. History is a good length. But accusations of recentism can be levelled - five parags for the first 100 years, then 3 for the next 17, ie each parag covers an averag of 20 years at first, and then 6 toward the end. I've seen worse, believe me. Address by slightly expanding the older stuff, because they've done such a good job of the summary style, there's a bit of room to breathe. I'd suggest at least a sentence about the years leading to WWI, perhaps how the club survived each of the World Wars and for certain a decent expansion of the "few years of success" bit.  Done
4. On an associated point, I think that the financial irregularities and its association with the club's calamitous collapse, needs some further thought as to whether it deserves more space in the history or its own section.

I don't think so, it is well covered in the History of Luton Town F.C. (1970–present) article. Cliftonian • talk

Hope that helps. PS "moniker" is a horrible informality in an encyclopedia article, although I love the word personally.  Done --Dweller (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guv'ner, much appreciated. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Been through, cheers guys Cliftonian • talk 06:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK re Bacon, egg and cheese sandwich

Seems to be over 1500 characters absent the guff at the top. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I must admit I wasn't expecting such an unmitigated gastronomic orgy of saturated fats, but meh, there you go. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems to have been driven by the vast marketing budgets of the faux-food industry; they leave a web-footprint. There are likely millions of these made per day — not counting the franchises. Emmette may be right about the worldview; these are not ubiquitous in, say, Mali. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Banksia and climate change

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. Hesperian 23:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yikes! Yes please. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. Hesperian 00:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Banksia sphaerocarpa var. pumilio

FloraBase has an entry for this, but no other information.[2] Know anything about it? Hesperian 04:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Never mind; I found it.[3] Hesperian 04:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

... and I see your name in the Acknowledgements too.... Hesperian 05:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

I guess you might want to have a look at this too. Hesperian 11:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Buff-faced Pygmy-parrot

On June 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Buff-faced Pygmy-parrot, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Giants27 09:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:Deacon_of_Pndapetzim

Thanks for the message. I responded on my own talk page. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I've left a response on talk page. Thanks. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Planning to archive some threads at IP placenames discussion

As I said here, I'm planning to archive a few threads at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Placename_guidelines if there's no objection. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I'm also planning to start 5 new threads, if there is no objection, as I mention here, about the clauses of Peter Cohen's suggested text which he had proposed earlier in the thread Occupied etc Territories. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Banksia benthamiana

On June 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Banksia benthamiana, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 15:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Dave Arneson

Talk:Dave Arneson/GA1‎  :) BOZ (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Kelly pool

Hi Casliber. Quite some time ago you did the GA review on Kelly pool. There was an issue with the lack of a history section. I have spent numerous hours researching the game since then. The article now has an origins section, and I believe I am the first person in modern times to have discovered the information detailed in it, weaving together various early 20th century sources providing information on the game's origins. This would not have been possible, of course, without the advent of digital, searchable newspaper archives, which by the way, are wonderfully accessible through ancestry.com though their search function is very hard to work with). I corresponded with Michael Ian Shamos (curator of the U.S. Billiard Archive and writer of the billiards encyclopedia we rely on for much information in articles) and he wrote back that it was an important discovery, confirming to me that this really was heretofore unknown in modern scholarship. I have also expanded various portions of the article; especially the game's long connection with gambling.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, impressive. Really - it is worth asking Ian if it isn't worth placing in some newsletter or publishing somehow in some billiard/pool related material. I'd reckon this is worth a crack again along the GA/FA route. The downer is whether someone wuld consider it OR WRT wikipedia guidelines, which would be a shame if done so. I sorta don't think it is as everything is sourced but I need to check the connections..Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I got the distinct impression Shamos was annoyed with me. See User talk:SMcCandlish#Kelly pool for additional details. As for the GA/FA route, I thought as the original GA reviewer you would simply leave off where you left. It's not like GA is a mandated bureaucratic body. But if you think I should resubmit, I will. Do you think this has a chance at FA? The problem with articles in the pool/billiards area is that there isn't a smorgasbord of sources to work from. Most article subjects have a giant body of literature, and a user has the luxury of whittling at the grand canvas presented to create the article they want. Instead, for most articles I gather every source in the world I can find and write everything I can from them (which I sometimes think is a harder process; like putting together a puzzle with half the pieces missing) and they're still usually relatively short despite including every fact I can find. It's the nature of the beast in the area. I know of nothing more I could add to this article. Not because I don't want to but because I feel I've exhausted the few sources I could find.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Technically the original nom is expired, just renom it at GA, and if I grab it first, cool, I will do it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Done.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm finding your note on the talk page a bit... cryptic. You simply placed it on hold without describing your remaining concern. What is the "one teeny thing"?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ha! Okay, let me explain my confusion. I only looked at the talk page history, and not at the header which has a link to the separate review page. All I saw was you changing the title to status=on hold and thinking that was all you had done, I think you can now understand why I found that with the only other information the edit summary, a bit cryptic. After all, the last review took place directly on the talk page. As soon as I looked at your edit history and saw your change to a separate page, I slapped my forehead and went there for the first time!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

So I have found some very exciting (to me) discoveries today--more "original research from reliable sources";-) and, well, I think I'm scooping everyone (though I have not added any material on this to the article yet). The billiard and etymology publications I've seen say behind the eight ball is from kelly pool (not from the game of eight ball) and point to the evidence that 8-ball was little know before 1940, was not played with an actual 8-ball in its prior incarnation (BBC Co. pool) and was only invented in or about 1900 and barely know in its early days. They then mention that the idiom has been in use since at least 1919. Well, they're all wrong! It's not from kelly pool either. I have shown through reliable sources that kelly pool was invented in or about 1893. Well I now have found two different books using the expression before 1893; one from 1873 and another from 1877, and using them for the same meaning the idiom has now. I have also located newspaper sources showing a different, more generic origin. I'll write it up soon.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Nicobar Bulbul

Hello! Your submission of Nicobar Bulbul at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Ironholds (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Guaiabero

On June 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Guaiabero, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 03:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you aware you undid results of AN and AFD discussions almost immediately

Are you aware of this discussion? Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Need an admin to restore a merged article You appear to have undone the results of an AN thread that was meant to correct a GFDL violation. You also appear to have immediately reversed another admin's changes without discussion when the edit summaries noted an AFD. What's up? You may want to comment at the AN.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for being a stickler on this Doug. I really like the GFDL ethics, as do many supporters of this project.

I'd like to save both you and Cas time by noting, as a third party that Cas recognised he'd contributed to confusion and offered immediate assistance.

Well done both of you.

If you could drop me a line on where to learn more about GFDL and Wiki, Doug, I'd really appreciate it. Wanna learn more.

Best Alastair Haines (talk) 11:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Expert rating needed: scale 1 to 10

How bad is the Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology?

On a scale of 1 to 10, Cas thinks? Alastair Haines (talk) 11:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I need to see it. I have never heard of it until this very post. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL. That's not a good sign for the tome. Link comming right at you. Just a mo. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Gall, Susan (1996). The Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology. Gale Group. ISBN 978-0787603724 [Two psych undergrads have reviewed it, each gave 5/5 stars!]

The Booklist review is positive, but telling for the likes of you and I. Susan Gall is a freelance writer (not unlike yours truly). Reliable source, at Wiki yes. Best source, no. No wonder you've not heard of it, you'd never need it.

Alastair Haines (talk) 11:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Strange I have never heard of it, but then again alot of psychology and psychiatry texts do seem to run in parallel, so on reflection that is not as bad as it sounds. A quick google scan suggests it is a general purpose psychology textbook - sort of part way between a secondary and tertiary source really. How'd it come up? Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Rosella

I have put the Pale-headed Rosella in the birds for identification series for more comments. My book illustration has the adscitus with a blue chin and cheeks, and the palliceps with white cheeks above blue. According the the ranges in the book the adscitus is further north that the Atherton Tablelands. Rethink; my book illustrations were not as good as some on-line photographs that I just found, and I now think that you are correct about the subspecies going on the appearance. I will leave it in the "Birds for identification" series; I am still a bit puzzled about the range. Snowman (talk) 12:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

user space cruft

Hi. First, you seem to have missed my notes about the #Template-y thing that’s protected so that I can’t help you…

Anyways, see

• commons:User talk:Jack Merridew#Page request
• commons:User:Rlevse
• commons:User talk:Rlevse#new user page and recent nudges at
• User:Rlevse

Your user page is rather like Rlevse’s and I could/(will; BOLD) nudge yours in the same direction. You up for more than a nudge? Something mostly new? Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, here's a challenge, make a fine watermark-like texture for the slab of colour on which there is writing, either green leaves, parchment or water. Green is my colour, I have some interesting photos to upload later but my scanner is incompatible with windows 2000 so I have to dig an old PC out of the garage, Anyhoo, as Bob Hope said on his deathbed, "surprise me" Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

That is usually fairly straightforward, however wiki-markup does not allow the use of background images. If you try and use such techniques, the code gets cut before it is served to teh internets. The only images allowed are foreground images that are uploaded and tagged such that they stay around.

This is done with a foreground image and some code. If the image is subdued enough that text looks fine over it, the whole translucent box can be omitted. There are two limitations to this technique; the image can't repeat so you're stuck with placing the text over some fixed-sized area, and the positioning trickery may not work for devices such as phones:

• User talk:Jack Merridew/Archive 3#Giano user page not showing up nicely on my mobile phone

You're running Windows 2000 in 2009? And admit it on-wiki?

It is an old HP5100C which for some insane reason is not compatible with any system newer than Windows 98. It just crashes them. Haven't got round to getting another but have an old computer in the garage (along with lots of other junk byprodcuts of capitalist consumerism) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

PS: Will pick an image then, not really fussed about mobiles. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

See also

Just do it

Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

See s:User:Josette for an example. Select a large picture you like and that text and links will be readable against. I can position other images as you like on it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

OK...I have an idea....give me a moment. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

and see here, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Lord of the Flies unprotection

Hello. I noticed Lord of the Flies has been semi-protected for over 13 months. I thought I'd go and request unprotection, but the page said to take it up with the protecting admin first, so here I am taking it up with the protecting admin. —JAO • T • C 21:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let's see how this goes then. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ireland poll

I have blanked the poll at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Ireland article names community poll as the direction that's being taken seems to be going elsewhere just now and the only contributions on the talk page are coming from one involved user questioning my good faith. I am willing to help out if anything is needed, but I'll leave the page for you guys either to delete or hand over to the new moderators however you decide. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Email

URGENT YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 08:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Pale-headed Rosella

Just a note for your DYK - the hook ref appears missing full citation details unless I've missed something. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

two digits in refs

I could understand if you changed "423–428" to "423–8", but why "423–28"? Is there a convention I don't know about? Hesperian 12:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC) 423–28

Yes, there is (apparently). I have tried looking for it again and failed to find it, but have been pinged at FAC and always done it since. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK feedback

Hi there. I've been an occasional contributor and reviewer at DYK. Today I made my first attempt to follow the procedures for moving material to Prep area 1, including generating credits, and removing the items from the discussion page. I would appreciate feedback from yourself or another regular as to whether my actions were correct. Can I also anticipate three things: there's only one US item out of seven, because most of the older noms that had been reviewed were non-US; I went up to seven hooks rather than six to get the box looking 'full' on the main page; and I know something is supposed to be done for the image, but I wasn't confident of what, so I haven't done anything. I'd really appreciate an explanation of that bit of the process. I'm posting this message to Dravecky, Casliber and Royalbroil, so whoever's around can ping me at my talkpage. Thank you! hamiltonstone (talk) 00:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

British people

Hi there, just a quick nudge that I've replied at Talk:British people. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  14:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Nicobar Bulbul

On June 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nicobar Bulbul, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 23:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Pale-headed Rosella

On June 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pale-headed Rosella, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Mifter (talk) 05:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The Historian

Do you have some time to copyedit The Historian? It needs some more polishing before GA. Awadewit (talk) 18:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I should do. Will take a look. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Drop me a line when you are done and I'll put the article up for PR or GAN. Which do you think would be best? Awadewit (talk) 03:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I just clicked open the page to do a bit in a few minutes :) My feeling is these days to take it to GA as most of the time you get a pretty thorough workover. If afterwards you feel iffy about the flow do a PR, otherwise ask someone new and FAC. I have a couple of ideas. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Blake (????)

Can you put a year in that Blake reference please? It was the first thing I looked for (because I wanted some idea which revision it was discussing). Hesperian 01:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Hang on a sec. Will fetch. It isn't actually in the publication but elsewhere. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: award

Thanks man. It means a lot to me. ChrisDHDR 10:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Delusional disorder

this needs some work ? Earlypsychosis (talk) 11:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the term dog's breakfast comes to mind....Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Luton Town F.C.

Hi mate,

You may have seen this is now up for FAC. I've been asked to have an independent copy-edit done on it, and I remembered you had a look at it before. Want to give it a go? Thanks, Cliftonian • talk 13:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Aargh. Might have to wait till tomorrer - 'tis nearly midnight here in Oz and I have a cold, was planning to go to bed soon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Righty right—I'm not trying to rush you, just get it done as soon as you can. :) Cliftonian • talk 16:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a heads up, the nomination appears to depend on you now. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 15:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Both the prose opposers are now supporting. Would you mind changing your support from provisional to full?

Cheers fella. :) – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 15:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks mate. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 04:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

My evidence section is too long. What now?

Pear-shaped beats Rambutan-shaped any day!

Hi Casliber, I'm a participant in the ADHD Arb case. Since you recused yourself, I thought I should ask you what I ought to do about my evidence section. My evidence section is too long; it's around 1200 words. It would be less than 1000 words if I deleted all the of the brief descriptions I used for each dif that I present, but I think they are useful because they make navigating my evidence easier. I am also finding it hard to part with any of the content. What should I do? Sifaka ^talk 01:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I have not looked, but in general, providing a short summary and then linking and making an evidence subpage in your userspace might be a good idea. As the clerks. I just logged on and will have a look later. Today is turning pear-shaped IRL. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Disturbing

I find this disturbing. You're gaining ground too quickly. Must...create...more...articles. Guettarda (talk) 21:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey Guettarda, here's a few redlinks :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah...the problem with figs is that it's so hard to figure out what the current accepted names are for species. And the fact that people hide their Australia-level monographs in obscure journals ;) Guettarda (talk) 13:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Madeira Vine? Sorry, I don't speak Common. :) (Actually my D&D character was a dwarf.) Guettarda (talk) 00:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Anredera cordifolia (sigh) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I eavesdropped on this discussion this morning. Currently available tools refuse to yield an answer for me. For a while I've been tossing around the possibility of doing something about it, and this thread prompted me to finally do so. I hacked a similar script that I've been using to stalk Cygnis over at Wikisource, into an article creation counter. In your case, Cas, I count 351; I can provide a list if you want. You have to be careful precisely how these numbers are defined, though. This count refers to mainspace pages for which you have the first edit, and which are presently not redirects; i.e. it would include redirects that you created which were subsequently overwritten with an article by someone else; but exclude redirects created by other people, which you subsequently turned into articles. The only way to improve on that is to walk through the edit history of each of the 4400 unique pages you've edited, attribute authorship to the author of the first non-redirect revision. It ain't worth it. Hesperian 07:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes - I'd like to see which 351 that list comes up with and compare it to the 324 I have on my user subpage. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Dumped into User talk:Casliber/Articles. I ran it against my own account overnight. 1362: cop that! Hesperian 01:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Hi, I seriously do not know hot to deal with this when suddenly someone accuses you of something and I feel that personal good will is in danger. I have been accused of it and my subordinate has already posted an explanation for the same. Help is needed. Warm regards Pushkraj Janwadkar Pushkraj.janwadkar (talk) 12:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Your help is needed here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pushkraj.janwadkar

Vertical.limit (talk) 16:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ping

You got mail. Jolly Ω Janner 14:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep, we're looking into it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Your Barnstar

I wanted to let you know that I attempted to get the Albert Einstein article to FA but after a very distasteful experience with the FA process I have abandoned work on. I have done a lot to it to get it up to status and if someone is interested they should be able to get it to FA status relatively quickly. Most of the remaining work is related to cleaning up and pruning down the references.--Kumioko (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look. It would be a great article to get to FA and se if we can smoothe things over/work it out. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for providing another clear example of FA ignoring content completely. Why does this process continue to exist? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Erm...okay...it is a process calld collaborative editing PMA. I do feel this exchange did highlight a negative of the situation that it would be good to fix. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Do let me know when it shows any signs of improving; I'd be glad to help. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Einstein or FAC? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll look in on Einstein, although his biography is out of my field. But I meant FAC; it would be nice to see FA actually concentrate on accuracy, neutrality, and clarity instead of MoScruft. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association

The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring (and reliably sourced) contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Discussion is here.Peter Damian (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Jatlas

Hi Casliber, I'm wondering if you might be willing and able to explain to Jatlas something that I've been trying to get across for some time without success. Xhe's gotten into the habit of citing primary sources in support of claims that various Medicinal mushrooms have particular medicinal properties. It's not that review sources are unavailable, xhe just doesn't use them. See the lengthy discussions at Agaricus blazei for background. Thanks,LeadSongDog come howl 22:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I had seen this before. Will look soon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Banksia sphaerocarpa var. dolichostyla

On June 18, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Banksia sphaerocarpa var. dolichostyla, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wizardman 08:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

May need to remove your name

Hi, I see that you have withdrawn from ADHD investigation as you had an edit dispute with scuro on ADHD article, well noticed it a week or so ago but only noticed last night that you have not removed your name from this page. Just thought that I would let you know. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK Hook Barometer

Hey there Casliber, I saw your question about having a "Hook Barometer" that you could put onto your userpage, I saw how Gatoclass already pointed you to the queue page, but in case you wanted to actual bot updating template to put on your userpage its Wikipedia:Did you know/DYK hook count ({{Wikipedia:Did you know/DYK hook count}}). Hope this helps and All the Best, Mifter (talk) 03:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Help

Hi Cas, It seems my winning personality has earned me a devoted fan and stalker; I am wondering if you can give some assistance. Here are various diffs for your enjoyment, in various accusatory colours: 1, 2, 3, 4. There's a history of tendentious, unproductive edits (e.g. here), but the attacks against me are becoming a nuisance and an irritant. Would a block request be in order? Eusebeus (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have just waded through 94 arb emails and no coffee yet :( Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

>NB: This is also why GA and FA status are good, as they (to me) function as a a'flagged revision' or 'stable version' of sorts, a place where there is a locus of consensus. Still haven't had my coffee and it is 8am here and the confounded busyness of a saturday beckons ...ugh. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Harm is worse than you think

I applaud your decision on Obama articles but it is not enough. There are other editors not mentioned and some got off too lightly.

The mess with Obama hurts Wikipedia. I used to contribute until about a year ago because some Obama people were just too nasty. Suggest a good edit and they jump all over you. Many people not listed have a clear political agenda (only positive things and oppose all neutral or negative things for some; only negative things and oppose all positive things for others).

One trouble is that people write something and have a reference. But there is no editorial consideration of what goes in the article. As a result, there is more positive stuff and negative stuff is censored because more people are disciples of Obama than haters.

This mess also hurts Wikipedia that I've decided only to read Wikipedia, not add to it. If I see something that is poorly written, I think "why help?". There is no appreciation for helping but swift attacks by people who have a political agenda. Then they stalk you in the other articles.

The solution to Obama hasn't been reached. ArbCom has taken a long time but just nipped a few people. A real solution would be to have professional reviewers, even English and History teachers to act as referees. This would be done only in exceptional cases, such as the Obama article and only for a limited period, such as 3-4 months. Until then, I don't write for Wikipedia.

DYK for Moluccan King Parrot

On June 22, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Moluccan King Parrot, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 20:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for king parrot

On June 22, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article king parrot, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 20:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Major_depressive_disorder

This is an incredible article. Really well done, Cas. As you said at the FAC, it is one of the site's finest. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. A bit lengthy (rightfully so), but very much worth the read. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh, gee thanks guys :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

names and evidence?

You asked to name names and evidence for the Obama article. If one cannot see that there is fighting and incivility and POV pushing, then they are incapable of making a fair decision. There are lots of bad attitudes there. Search the archives of the talk page and you can see that when good suggestions are made, the people get their heads bitten off. Then some aggressive editor archives (hides) the discussion or collapses it into a box.

Furthermore, I cannot provide evidence that I or others don't want to edit. But you can see that there are billions of people in the world but 99% don't edit.

Rather than demand evidence (only misfits have the time to collect and wade through diffs), you should find a way to ban all but the most civil and the most objective editors from that Obama article.

Synthesis

In my view of synthesis, people don't seem to understand that synthesis is the adding of one's own views and then putting them forth. Not only does that override the original sources, it takes all of their information and bends it to the writer's own perspective. Thus, they cannot be reliable as they no longer have the direct relationship to the source. The problem with places like the literary encyclopedia is that editors go about and write all sorts of stuff that -seems- great, but when you look at reliable sources much of it is easy to dismiss. People are naturally opinionated and subjective, and relying on other sources for information and sticking to that helps to neutralize any problems that would arise. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was my thinking too - we report, recrod, summarise and translate, but do not create content de novo. I am puzzled by the comments on hte topic. Problem is that the word 'synthesis' is ambiguous, in that collating all the info is a synthesis too, but not in the narrower definition. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Thirst (1979 film)

On June 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thirst (1979 film), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 14:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Please delete user/disc pages; warn jayron/redpen/mufka

Hello casliber, If you could please delete my page and page history, I'd be much obliged.

I requested speedy deletion on 1Apr for reason 1.6. jayron deleted it, then acted as if s/he did me a favour. I feel jayron shouldnt have been the one to delete it initially as s/he and I have negatively interacted in the past. Followups from jayron included an unneccesary block; followed by telling me to get a yahoo email so that I may contact wiki admins!

Wiki is all about anon editing : as such I didnt and wont get an email account in order to communicate as it is not required.

Since then jayron,redpen, mufka have been repeatedly editing my page. I blank my page they restore it. This has been happening since April, so for 3months now. I bet if I changed their pages they'd posting threats of "i'll report you" and/or "you will be banned". It is quite easy for me to get a new ip address but I dont think Ive done anything wrong, so I wont change my ip address.

If my pages needed to be restored /reverted, I definitely think those three arent the ones who should do it as they/I have a convoluted history.

If you could please delete my page and page history, I'd be much obliged.
If you could contact jayron, redpen, & mufka & ask that any problems they have they let an admin or arbitrator know, instread of making changes or posting to me. I'd like to edit wiki in peace Thanks. 173.79.58.33 (talk) 17:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Magpie

New magpie image; File:Cracticus tibicen -Queensland -Australia-8.jpg. Just in case you can use it in the article. Snowman (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice photo - it is actually a Pied Butcherbird, which I was planning to buff up at some stage too. Fine songbird. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. File listed for renaming on commons. Snowman (talk) 09:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Use of Sports Logos. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 02:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Trouted

Whack!

You have been trouted because I hadn't seen the button before (by your username) and wanted to press it. Coming to the meetup next wednesday? ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 05:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Eucalyptus crebra

On June 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eucalyptus crebra, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 08:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

A question for you

Regarding WMC, his edit summaries -- and use of admin tools, in blocking while he says he was inebriated -- are increasingly antagonistic. I particularly note this edit summary. I had accidentally misspelled his name, and he replied "I can spell, can you" in the edit summary, and left a similarly snarky message below my statement. If this was an isolated incident, I'd simply let it slide, but it's not. Another example is this edit summary, in which he writes, "this is a f*ck*ng wiki. it allows links. which work best if you spell things properly" to an editor who had dared not wikilink a username he was asking about. Following so closely on the heels of his claiming that he blocked CoM while he was inebriated (and when there was no consensus at ANI to do so), this is very troubling. What is your view on this situation? Unitanode 04:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see the bit about being inebriated. I have noted discontent with CoM and polarised opinion about. It is a messy situation with alot of ongoing bickering. I agree with comments noted above are unhelpful. In principle, the most structured way for review of use of admin tools and conduct remains making a specific request to the arbitration committee. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

WMC seems to have a thing about linkings. He called for User:Docu to be de-sysopped [4] over his refusal to link his own username. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The "inebriated" issue sprang from this comment [5] following his mistakenly issuing an indef, which he quickly corrected, but unfortunately left some readers shaken and caused quite a stir. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Somewhat related.. regarding this reply to you by CoM, I will challenge you to find any harassment by me towards CoM. I've about had it with him plastering the same accusation with my name everywhere he touches on WP. I've also had it with his usual pattern of attack/run/blame everyone else for "picking on me". I can not believe that this is being allowed to continue. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 04:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm now rather sorry for even dipping a toe into this quagmire. I do hope the lot of you understand that I am not taking sides on the underlying issues, but rather am just pointing out that there is more fault to be found than only with CoM. Best, Unitanode 05:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm certainly not disagreeing with your assessment of William. There are issues that need to be addressed. But his issues doesn't excuse CoM's issues - not to mention, it isn't William running around slandering me everytime I turn around - it's CoM. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 05:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Some time back, I adopted the philosophy that what editors call me here doesn't matter. What matters here is article content. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

(facepalm) it is Saturday daytime here, a day full of chores - I go offline to do some and...sigh. Let's have a look....Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

In short, you're way ahead of us. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

How long are you going to let him get away with this kind of soapboxing that's an insult to the integrity of everyone else here? [6] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can see it, and it is (a) not mentioning editors specifically and (b) on his talk page. Technically it flies under the radar I just set a few hours ago, but then again, your note of it above and at the request for clarification board does as well, so let's just leave it at that. We are keeping an eye on things, we just need everyone to disengage. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Big Star

I'll help out soon. At first glance the big problem is POV; the article is blalant about how important and how underappreciate the group is (which is a common perception among rock music critics, to be fair), right up to the section titles ("Failure of first album" and so on). Talk plainly and let the facts and sources speak for themselves, that's my Wiki philosophy. By the way, didn't you review something of mine in the past? I remember working with you in some review capacity before and I remember it being a pleasant experience. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh - I reviewed something or other (or two) of yours sometime or other :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I had you review In Utero. It's been awhile! WesleyDodds (talk) 06:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That and engaging in idle banter on Ceoil's talkpage...Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

new article Care programme approach

FYI (but mainly for UK mental health staff) Earlypsychosis (talk) 04:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Occupied/Disputed Territories

Hi, Casliber I wonder whether it will be possible to add the "Occupied Territories" v "Disputed Territories" terminology dispute to the existing Arbcom measure requiring a decision to be reached on the use of "Judea and Samaria" etc. at IPCOLL, or whether you have any other suggestion on how to create a strongly mandated solution that reflects Wikipedia policy.

You may have noticed that I tried to put a proposal forward at IPCOLL but that the level of participation in discussion on that is very low. I feel it needs a centralised discussion as there is a long-running dispute at Talk:Israel on this matter. Meanwhile at Golan Heights there has been an RFC which, to my mind, reached an unsatisfactory conclusion where the "occupied territories" terminology used by the UN and the vast majority of the world including Israeli allies such as the US and UK has been placed on a par with "disputed territories" as used only by the right wing of Zionism. The closing admin there has since been accused of bias, given their user page having boxes showing support for Israel. I certainly wish to escalate what I regard as a very poor decision that fails to reflect WP:NPOV's guidance on how to handle matters where the vast majority of sources side one way.

So could you make suggestions on how to deal with this, thanks?--Peter cohen (talk) 12:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I need to read and digest this. I was about to go to bed after some last minute editing, but will get back to you in the next day or so. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I have had a read and will ask the other arbs about how to proceed. Agree it was a badly organized debate. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. To recap, I'm obviously aware that this is a content dispute, but I feel that it is a close relative to the Judea and Samaria and the Ireland-naming ones and is likely to reach ARBCOM for editor conduct reasons eventually. Hence my wanting to pre-empt things. And, given that only one or two other editors responded to my draft proposal at IPCOLL, I'm wanting some way to give sufficient moment to a discussion that we can get something out of it that can be deemed to represent community consensus.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the more I think of it, maybe the best thing is to get discussion out in the open about it. If you feel that ongoing collaborative discussion is not proving fruitful, then you can make a formal request a for a case. It does not fit neatly under the recently closed West Bank case, nor does it lie neatly in the realm of the West Bank naming guidelines as such. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ruff

Hi, I saw your post on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sweden so I decided to look for some sources and I found this (Google Translate version here), which explains why the bird got its Swedish name "brushane", and that the females have a different name, "brushona". It also says the bird has disappeared from many southern provinces in Sweden due to the draining of marshes in the beginning of the 20th century. Is any of that worth using? TheLeftorium 15:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Good find! Thankyou very much, it will be useful. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad I could help. :) Also, in case you haven't noticed already, you got a reply from User:decltype here. TheLeftorium 20:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) PS: Say...you're not any good with russian, finnish, danish or dutch? ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I do speak Danish, actually, and I found this (translation). It says the number of Ruff has drastically decreased in Denmark since 1900 because of marsh draining and the use of insecticides. I hope that helps. :) TheLeftorium 21:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic - listen, I have to get off to daily chores as it is 7 am here in Oz, I would be extremely grateful if you could add it under the bit where I added the note on Sweden in the Ruff article. If you don't feel comfortable doing that, I can get to it in several hours. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I have added it now, though it may need to be rephrased. TheLeftorium 21:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks muchly for that. I can see it is tricky - it is always hard in this to meld references and statements. eg if we combine Sweden and Denmark in one statement, where do we place info on insecticides etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Civility

I am extremely interested in the civility poll and in civility in general as it contributes to collboration; but I am traveling right now so it may take me awhile to comment. Thanks very much for the notification.(olive (talk) 02:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC))

thanks for fixing my schoolboy error. --Joopercoopers (talk) 07:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

no probs :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Magpie recording

Hi Cas: I may have a recording of Oz Magpie which I can upload, but I'm in Alaska at the minute and can't check 'til mid-July when I get home again. I'm pretty sure I made a recording last October—though there's always the possibility I only thought about making a recording! :P MeegsC | Talk 12:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That would be great. If nothing has turned up by then I would be grateful :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Civ v. NPA

Hey Casliber:

Thanks for the poll, I think that sort of thing is very useful – I hope it achieves something, if nothing more than sorting out where we are now. I wondered about something, though: I’ve noticed over the years that there has been a natural tendency to conflate WP:CIV with WP:NPA – discussion on the poll page seems to be falling prey to that as well (I know mine is). Is it worth making a distinction – are you, in fact, making a distinction? I had always read the policies as saying, loosely, that CIV was mostly a tonal issue, and NPA was mostly a name-calling issue. Thanks again, feel free to drag this over to the talk page there. IronDuke 17:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I have often wondered whether there is any utility in keeping them separate really. Civility is clearly broader but can be very subjective. Disruptive editing is the other overlap. Yes, I might replicate this over there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

FCDW

The Solar System WikiProject also just reached its 50 FA milestone, do you think there is anyway we can add this to the Birds dispatch? Sandy is away so I figured I should contact you. ceranthor 23:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

? - I thought the birds dispatch had gone out....I am busy IRL for a few hours and will think on it. I figured it was big enough for one of its own though...Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, sorry, my mis-observation. ceranthor 23:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

On thinking about it, the question is whether WP Solar System is more active than WP Astronomy as such - is it better to make it a well-rounded concise review of just solar system, or an overview of astronomy, highlighting that the vast majority of FAs are within the solar system, and pointing out what to work on - have to ask the major contributors. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Papuan King Parrot

On July 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Papuan King Parrot, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass 02:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Coming 'round

		The Cool Award
		For being the most down-to-earth admin I've ever come across. ChrisDHDR 19:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hah, thanks :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

American Gothic House

Thanks for the quick review! I've been pretty busy and had only a chance to take a glance a few days ago, but I hope to set some time aside tomorrow (US time) to dig up the citations and prose I'm looking for. :) Thanks again. --McMillin24 _contribs^talk 04:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine - Psychiatry Task Force

A task force that you suggest back in late 2008 has passed and is ready to be created. Since you are the original philosopher of the task force, you have first chance to create it or let someone else do it. Cheers! Renaissancee (talk) 05:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Gimme a few hours - I will do it later tonight (it is late afternoon Sydney time...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Concerning an FoF in the recently closed AMIB case

Given that it was ruled that AMIB's blocks of myself and User:MalikCarr were incorrect, is there any way they could be expunged from our respective records? Jtrainor (talk) 11:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Good question...I was recused on the case so did not examine your dust-up closely, maybe the best place is the arbitration committee talk page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Rome Wasn't Built In A Day

Cool tune! You are right about its soothing properties. I noticed you dig Magical Mystery Tour, that happened to be Dr. Winston O'Boogie's fav Beatles album as well. I agree, it deserves more airplay. So Roll Up and Enjoy!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

My other favourite song would be I've Got a Feeling....hehehe. (can't look at utube currently, no sound. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Well why didn't ya say so sooner Cas?! I do take request, especially when I like them:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 00:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Get cracking

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/03/2615874.htm Hesperian 07:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought you'd be all over these, Cas! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 07:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Blast, all three are done. Had spotty access and arbcom headaches all day...:( Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Not really done... they're all at about 1k. Anyone could expand them pretty easily by adding just one sentence. The PDF is free to download here. Sorry about the Arb headaches. :( Firsfron of Ronchester 16:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I know, I thought about that after I went to bed too...I have been trying to sort out some FA, GA and medical stuff. There are still a few days to bump some of these aussie ones to 1500kb and a DYK....Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Botanical question

Hi Casliber, I saw your edits to Zanthoxylum americanum - thanks! Your removal of the author name from the lead section begs the question: what is standard botanical practice (in general, not just Wikipedia) for when to use the author abbreviation and when not to do so? Can you point me to something to read about that? LadyofShalott 16:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Aha, I am not sure off the top of my head where something has been written - in general we just use the scientific name without author unless it is a technical journal or situation where we have two things named the same but described by different authors and are trying to distinguish between the two. User:Hesperian may know more - I will ping him. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

We don't use the authority in the article lead - that's our unofficial convention, as far as I am aware. In my experience, if the authority is required, it's only used the first time the species is mentioned. It isn't part of the name of the species, it's a reference. My take on it is that since that information is included in the taxobox, it doesn't need to be repeated in the article lead. That said, I think that an important element of a complete article on a species is a discussion of its taxonomic and nomenclatural history. I could see an argument for including the authority when you refer to a species in another article. But I think it's easier not to include it in the lead of the article. Guettarda (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, what I do is slot in a 'taxonomy' section after the lead, which Hesp and others prefer further down (alzo I haff convinced zee whole Birdz vikiprojekt to do it my way (mwaaahahahahaha!))

But seriously, having taxo section first up can be a bummer if you have a taxon with >10 subspecies or something...Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

QED Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I prefer description before taxonomy. I don't suppose that matters with birds - they all look pretty much the same, eh? Guettarda (talk) 23:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm someone who should be in the birds project with comments like that SatuSuro 13:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, plenty of jokes I can recall...but not for a G-rated noticeboard :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks the comments, Casliber and Guettarda! LadyofShalott 17:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Offer to userify deleted article

Thanks for your offer to userify a deleted article. Are there any other options you can think of to restore articles? I only ask because I am concerned by the idea of users "userifying" articles to protect them from "deletionists". It seems almost un-wiki like to work privately on an article! Still, if you think that might be a good option then I would certainly take you up on it. Frei Hans (talk) 09:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Userfying is the first step - it preserves the history and allows you to keep working on it. Once you can demonstrate that it may more readily fulfil notability criteria, you have a much better chance of being able to return it to userspace. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's do that then. Frei Hans (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Before taking any action Casliber, you might want to look at the opinions and discussion at the DRV filed by Hans, the WQA report filed by Hans, the SPI report filed by Hans, and the RFC/U that has been stated here. Verbal chat 17:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Stray being reviewed template at GAN

Hi Casliber. There's a stray "being reviewed" by you at WP:GAN in the Chemistry/Materials Science subsection. It was under the Boron nitride article which I just finished reviewing. Just thought I'd give you a heads up. Diderot's dreams (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

'twas a glitch. was going to review silicon carbide but had been started by another user. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Editing restrictions a.k.a civility parole

I asked a question on the talk page of WP:Editing restrictions, to which I've yet to receive a reply. Now that the civility poll is exploring similar issues, I wonder whether a section exploring the enforcement and efficacy of civility paroles might be appropriate? I'd certainly welcome the view of Arbs on this. Would you object to me adding a section? Kind regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That would be a great idea. Something tells me I think you are right WRT the most recent civility restriction, but i cannot exclude the fact I may b wrong. No matter. Need to start somewhere. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Added - with a special coral, just for Arb responses. I've tentatively suggested the current Arbs might be reticent in using the remedy, in part because of the evident confusion regarding WP:CIVIL evidenced on the page. I'll drop a note at WP:ARBCOM to that effect, pointing to the section. Kind regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 05:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Hamilton Deane

On July 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hamilton Deane, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) 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.

BorgQueen (talk) 02:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Offer to userify article accepted

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I guess we leave it there for a month, given Frei Hans' block. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Hi Casliber. Thanks for your offer to userify the article Telepathy and war. I am relatively new to "userification" and wondered if you could also answer a few questions.

• After an article has been userified, can it be deleted by other users while it is being worked on?
• If a userified article remains inactive (for example while a user is busy elsewhere) is there an inactivity time limit?
• Can other users contribute to the article in its userified state?

Thanks again. Frei Hans (talk) 08:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Note this is a continuation of the above thread, #Offer to userify deleted article. Cheers, Verbal chat 08:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Link to WP:USERFY added to Frei Hans' talk page. As I understand it, the answers are yes (through the correct procedure), not specified but not indefinitely, and yes (which is where I guess there could be a problem if I'm right). See the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telepathy and war and the DRV [7] to get a flavor of the discussion. Dougweller (talk) 10:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

fyi, I'd say that Frei Hans is looking at a likely indef block soon, given all the shite on his talk page and his disinterest in anyone's advise or responding to the open RFC/U. Be silly to undelete that article only to not allow him to do whatever with it. There's a current AN/I thread, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

(facepalm)....o, let's have a read...Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it seems to have been lost amoung all of Casliber's other messages. Sorry to double-up. Frei Hans (talk) 12:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Bingo. Cas, note the removal of Doug's, my and your comments. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

And please, please don't userfy it given this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Verbal -- listing 11 editors including Sheffield Steel (but not me for some reason, shucks). That's earned him a one month block, and he should consider himself lucky. Dougweller (talk) 12:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Um...right, as fast as I try and read it the situation changes. I guess this stops here for a while. I think I will use a nice template around this discussion. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Nice box; I'll edit in it; we have indef. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sirius at WP:TFAR

I've nominated Sirius at TFAR for July 20 or August 1st. You may want to note your concurrence. Smallbones (talk) 15:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Request

Hi Cas, would you, or one of the other Arbs involved in creating this Council, please consider posting some details on the RfC talk page of exactly how it came about? I think some transparency is needed regarding how the decisions were made, and in particular who invited the members, and how they were chosen. For example, you said that "we" (by which I take it you mean the ArbCom) expected a backlash, so it would be interesting to know who decided it should proceed anyway.

I think transparency is very important here, because the situation has caused a loss of trust, which is unfortunate and needs to be repaired. I'll post this request on the RfC talk page too. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for posting some information, Cas. If you want us to move forward with the idea of a "good governance think tank", my suggestion is that Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development be marked "historical," and a new page started from scratch, with fresh input, with the emphasis on transparency and separation of powers from the very beginning. I've posted how I'd like to see such a think tank set up here, in case it's helpful. Anything that smacks of members being chosen in secret, or that looks as though it might extend ArbCom's remit, won't work, for all the reasons outlined. Something fresh and open that truly tries to represent all sectors of the community might. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the council members appear willing to press forward. Jimbo just made it clear on his talk page that he supports this initiative. If the ArbCom concurs, I believe this council will continue to operate as originally chartered. Cla68 (talk) 02:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Groucho Marx, etc.

I sent the club a wire stating, "PLEASE ACCEPT MY RESIGNATION. I DON'T WANT TO BELONG TO ANY CLUB THAT WILL ACCEPT PEOPLE LIKE ME AS A MEMBER". -Groucho Marx, Groucho and Me

Casliber, you weren't quite the first person at the RfC talk to suggest that jealousy motivated the initiative's opposition. Yet you did so under color of authority, which places those of us who have sincere wikiphilosophical qualms at a disadvantage. In response, I have posted an invitation which for clarity am repeating here: feel free to salt this page. Any person who would tank a good idea simply because they weren't invited into a position of power is someone who shouldn't be entrusted with administrative tools. Durova²⁷⁵ 02:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Your note

I can't guess what they'd differ on, because I have no idea what the people you invited think is wrong, and that is part of the problem. The point is that the ArbCom is acting beyond its remit. It was elected to resolve disputes, nothing more. In fact, this particular ArbCom was expressly elected as a backlash against the previous ArbCom appearing to assume too much authority.

Good governance can't simply be a goal. It has to be a practice and a state of mind too. Here, now, we have a chance to show that we respect good governance, not only in principle, not only for the future, and not only when it's convenient. If such a think-tank is to exist, it needs to be entirely separated from the ArbCom, its members must say what they want to achieve, and then they must stand for election. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

So, not even seeing it as a 'caretaker' or 'interim' group is good enough? I don't believe that you couldn't guess either - there are several themes often discussed which have been identified as problematic. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Cas, the community is not going to accept this particular group of invitees, or the involvement of ArbCom, or the group's remit, or the way it was foisted on them. The whole thing shows a lack of political judgment and knowledge of the community. To make matters even worse, some of the invitees have started attacking the people who opposed them, which more than anything shows you, I hope, what one of the problems is. Please abandon this idea for everyone's sake. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Slim, RfCs generally remain open for a month - there is no consensus there nor is there yet much of an attempt to forge one - I am actually happy for it to be rebuilt as long as an alternative is presented and we can map out something, so please, you and Durova are welcome to start the mapping. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a strong consensus against the current proposal. Please respect it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Slim, lay off the arm-wrestling tactics ok? I am not interested. Nothing productive comes of this approach. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to respect the outcome of the RfC? There is no arm-wrestling. It's a straightforward question. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If you mean now, 48 hours after the opening of the RfC, then the answer is no - as Wikipedia isn't a battleground. As I said, the grand total of commenters on the page remains small WRT to the larger community. What I am hoping is that they are not scared off by the rather polarised and adversarial tone - thus we'll see how this develops, and after a sufficient time, yes I will respect what consensus eventuates. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Cas, we can hold a wiki-wide poll if you insist, but I believe the opposition would increase, if anything. And with respect, it is not for the people who introduced such a polarizing idea to tell opponents that WP is not a battleground. You were elected to resolve disputes, not to start them, and not to keep them going. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

We did not start the dispute - you were the one that opened this RfC, and the choice is yours to on whether to make it a collaborative or confrontational. The sky is not going to cave in if this is left open a while longer, so let's take it there ok? Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Notice

Dear Casliber, the discussion at User_talk:John_Vandenberg#Renewed_harassment_by_User:Jack_Merridew is perhaps of relevance to you as one of the three mentors. You told him to leave me alone. He didn't. We ended up with ANI threads suggesting as much. He still hasn't. In fact, he outright says I really am "a nobody" on my talk page and mentions me in an AfD I haven't even commented in, falsely saying I reflexively argue to keep "everything", even though I have nominated or argued to delete dozens of articles now. Your warning, the ANI threads, the fact that he was arbcom sanctioned, etc. has not caused these insults to stop. I honestly do not think anything less than a block would get him to stop already. Heck, even though he mass renominated a slew of articles I days before argued to keep, I still have resisted commenting in their actual AfDs. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, Casliber, Harry Levin is apparently persona non grata on the proteaceae page, although Levin has a logical and rational argument that idiomorphic similarities of disparate, distant Australian and African species bear important witness that the Proteaceae ranged Gondwanaland from Australia to Indo-Madagascar to Africa to South America prior to the Gondwanaland Ice Age 300 million years ago. The barb-wired Proteaceae page is an example of how the botanical community reacts to those who have the audacity to challenge the current dogma of Cretaceous origin of the angiosperm. Levin isn't speculating that flying saucers transported this species. Failure to footnote the existence of alternative theories or hypotheses is to close the blinds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikems (talk • contribs) 20:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Verbal

This is a simple notification that I've asked you a question at the link above. Basically, I don't understand how Coren's accept rational, and therefore also don't understand your endorsement of it. I've given a similar note to Coren altering hi to my question. Apologies if I've broken protocol or anything. Thanks, Verbal chat 23:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You are absolutely right in asking us to clarify. I will do so shortly. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics

I have nominated the article Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics for Per review. Could you review it? Felipe Menegaz 01:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your quickly replies. Regards; Felipe Menegaz 03:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

*A* previous case?

I object to this. I haven't been subject to *a* previous case. I've been subject to several. See User:William M. Connolley/For me. Please correct your statement :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 07:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I am innumerate, but I stronly suspects that "many" is a mystical group of numbers more than one, so I will adjust something soon...preferably after another cup of kawfee...Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Happy Bastille Day!

Dear fellow Wikipedian, I just want to wish you a Happy Bastille Day, whether you are French, Republican or not!  :) Happy Editing! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Flaming JW

Hi, Cas, hope you're doing fine. I just have a simple query, um, about the Flaming Joel-wiki. For the Harry Truman mention, the first lyrics, could I link to another article in the first name (Harry Randall Truman)? It would be cooler (and look like this):

Harry Truman, Doris Day.... ceranthor 12:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha - good tweak :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

So is that a yes? :) ceranthor 13:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Go for it (sorry, I am reading other threads and emails) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Arbitrating on content

I left a response to your comment on that talk page; apparently I forgot about the essay I wrote somehow. (And I'm sure you did, too). —harej (talk) (cool!) 06:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

latest news

Hope this helps! Privatemusings (talk) 22:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

or this? Privatemusings (talk) 22:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

G'day Cas - so here's some news for you... Kirill's just resigned from the arbcom, and Rlevse posted this in response over at his talk page;

We should all quit arbcom, then the community can fix everything themselves and can't bitch at us. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I replied;

funny you should mention that, as I was just about to post over at Casliber's page with a similar sort of idea. I'm sure you're aware that your seats on the committee are held open if you decide just to 'leave' the committee (wikibreak, whatever - a la newyorkbrad, coren, etc. etc.) - it might be a bit political for your tastes, but if you are indeed a bit disgusted at the vibe / treatment at the 'management' end of the project, a resignation would be a strong statement....

either ways... interesting times.. hope you're well.

as the 'other' arb on the council thing, I guess you're sort of in a hot seat, so thought you'd like to know. I think I got coffee before you this morning, so I'm half an hour ahead :-) Hope you're good regardless.... Privatemusings (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I still haven't turned the kettle on as I am too busy reading. Yes, there is alot going on on the arb mailing list, so...aargh. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Better be a strong one with a double shot...Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I just removed myself from the AC list. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I saw. Take care. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a dumb move by Rlevse, if the intention is to say to the community "well sod you then, we tried and we're now taking our ball away". I'd urge you not to follow, but listen to what's said in the RFc and adapt. On that note though "scale is too big for changes to be effected by consensus only, and some organised group" is dangerous. My understanding was the committee was going to be a small think tank to examine previous ideas and formulate advice and ways to move things forwards. Your RfC comment looks like it's conceived as everyone's worst fears - an organised group to effect big change - I'm not sure that's what you meant is it? --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I am trying to get everyone thinking along the lines of what is needed overall - i.e. the presence of some group to facilitate thinking in the first instance, which was the original intention. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Casliber, a man of your occupation might have avoided all this if he'd counselled against using the project acronym __PD for anything on Wikipedia. :-P (bad joke, if too subtle maybe just as well) Outriggr (talk) 07:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, yes that acronym has acquired a pejorative taint in my line of work, which is sad really - I am generally an advocate for treating them proactively (god, whole reams of stuff I could write...). Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Vested interest

Casliber, you have a vested interest, being both an ArbCom member and a member of the special committee devised to "advise" ArbCom. I would appreciate your acknowledgement of this conflict of interest. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Shall we move it all to the RfC as I was about to post something there but got edti-conflicted. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Bewildered

I'm perplexed, to say the least about the above notification.

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#ArbCom_Double_Resignation.3F initiated... ceranthor 22:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind... ceranthor 22:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Banksia prionotes

Actually, I've been keeping an eye occasionally on this article since you're one of those people I "stalk" because I find their edits really neat to check out :p. My primary concern at first is definitely those two {{citation needed}} tags. I'll give the article a quick once-over. Circeus (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You'll find my comments at Talk:Banksia_prionotes#notes_for_future_FAC. Circeus (talk) 22:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Not that you asked me, but I'm going to stick my nose in anyway. My thoughts would be

• B. prionotes - I've been taught never to start a sentence with an abbreviation; also told to spell out the genus name at least once per section (never thought if it like that, but reasonable)
• "Full name" - not sure that "Lindl." should really be considered part of the "full name" - it's the authority. Another thing - if authors were considered part of the species "full name", then wouldn't it be "Lindley", not Lindl., since the latter is only an abbreviation. Of course, I might be wrong.
  • Actually correctly-used abbreviations are best. Surely R.Br. is more accurate than "Brown", which could be any of some 50 authors, whereas "Gray" theoretically identifies a very specific author (namely Samuel Frederick Gray) and using "Gray" for Asa or John Edward Gray is bound to generate confusion. Circeus (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• link "type material" (done -found a good page too)
• "confirmed the obvious" - I don't like the wording, it sounds too, I don't know, smug?
• don't like "uneventful" taxonomic history
• "gains its common name" (it's common name derived/originates from...) (alright, alright)

Some of the language is a little stilted - overuse of passive voice maybe?

• "Otto Kuntze's unsuccessful 1891 attempt"
• "the 1870 arrangement of George Bentham", etc.
• "Alex George published a revision arrangement" - "revised arrangement" or "revision"
  • Sounds like Cas at first wanted to write just "revision" or "revision of the genus" and changed her mind, but not the word. Fixed. Circeus (talk) 21:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I think that was probably my screw-up. Golly, Circeus, was that a typo, or have you somehow gotten the impression, after all this time, that Cas is a "her"? I assure you 'tis not the case. Hesperian 00:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
• "an arrangement informed by", or "based on"?
  • *Being smug* The only "passive voice" in there is "was discarded." Circeus (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Not sure that the bit about subsuming Dryandra' into Banksia really belongs in this article
• "hybridizes"? Is that Aus. spelling?
  • British spelling, which is used in Australia. Circeus (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC) I'm an idiot and you're right, obvious typo fixed.
• "though B. lindleyana remains less closely related than B. hookeriana" - missing "to B. prionotes than to" (ok)

Guettarda (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(wakes up and rubs eyes).....I need a coffee first I think, this requires brain cells...Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

PS: To Guettarda, I did mentally toss a coin between you and Circeus and was goingto cross-post, but needed to catch zeds last night, yer input is much appreciated :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Ditto; thanks to both of you. Hesperian 00:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Plant sourcing

Yo Cas, I take it you're into the Australian flora, but I was wondering about the USDA site for U.S. plants. It seems to use a javascript, so I'm finding it difficult to include a link to a particulat plant's page. But I think it's a very useful and informative site. I'm also wondering if any concerted effort has been made to upload the photos and illustrations from there systematically. They seem to be public domain with attribution requested. Is that something a bot could do? Lemme know, wouldja? Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It does sound feasible but I am useless at bots - the person who is more interested in (a) some automated stuff, and (b) plants is Hesperian, who is busy till Monday but will have more helpful advice than me. Many plants are underrepresented on WP, and there is ample scope for hordes of articles...Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merges for Food and Drink

Based on your recent participation in several Food and Drink related merge discussions, I would like to point out several open discussions that might interest you:

• Proposed merge of Jumbals to Jumble (cookie). Discuss here.
• Proposed merge of Kerala porotta and Malabari paratha. Discuss here.
• Proposed merge of Maple spice cake to Spice cake. Discuss here.
• Proposed merge of Patty melt to Cheeseburger. Discuss here.
• Proposed merge of Butterfly cake to Cupcake. Discuss here.
• Proposed merge of Majboos and Kabsa. Discuss here.

--Jeremy (blah blah) 05:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the posting. --Jeremy (blah blah) 05:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

"Don't you know that monkeys are vegetarians??" YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 05:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

ACPD pages created

I've created two initial pages for the ACPD:

• Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development
• Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development/Forum

Please add them to your watchlist, stop by, and so forth. The latter page has a couple of logistical issues that we should discuss sooner rather than later, so I'd appreciate if you could find some time to comment on them.

Thanks! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 13:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Nature

Heya. I'm trying to arrange a ranger-led slog through Everglades National Park. I've asked for it to be off-season in November and somewhat specialized since I assume I may be a bit more informed than most who go on tours in the park. The idea led me to think of the Wikipedia Loves Art project, where Wikipedians go to museums to help their abilities to expand and create art-related articles.

What if there was a Wikipedia Loves Nature group to go to protected areas and do something similar? I don't know how to create such a thing or if it would be a good idea or what, but if a few Wikipedians who are interested in nature also join me in my slog, there are quite a few articles related to such a trek that might be expanded. I'm asking your fungus and bird-filled opinion. I'll also ask Guettarda and Ruhrfisch. Let me know if you're interested or have ideas. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It is a great idea, but I have no idea where it would have critical mass, as there are only a handful of editors in Sydney (maybe New York or London would you get a larger number of people). Much of my editing has involved writing about things I was taking snaps of here and there, many birds, insects and plants outside my backdoor :)

More esoteric ideas could include a wikicup of DYKs on organisms found near a user - eg keep a diary and write "I walked up the street, saw X and wrote...", or otherwise someone from WP joining a nature group anywhere and tagging along for a walk - eg. writing about it in diary form with the ranger and converting images to articles and, and posting in signpost. There could be a group 'Wikipedia loves nature' that keeps a diary or record of the weirdest places and most interesting stories of who goes where. I must admit I haven't looked at 'Wikipedia Loves art' which I will do after I brew and consume a sorely needed coffee...Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Request

Would very much appreciate your thoughts/input to User:Buster7/Incivility. No rush...I see your busy!--Buster7 (talk) 08:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability and fiction

Wikipedia:Notability and fiction (shortcut WP:NAF) has been drafted per the general consensus at the recent RFC to which you contributed. You are invited to review the essay and to edit it in an attempt to generate a consensus regarding the issue. Hiding T 10:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Kylie Minogue

Take your fancy? Another FAR.... YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 08:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeh, will take a look..Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Australia at the Winter Olympics as well. The structure doesn't feel good YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 06:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind

Two_more.^[8].^[9]

ceranthor 15:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Nah, 'sokay. 'sposed to be funny :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The Last Straw

Hya Cas..hope you are well. I think the straw that broke the camel's back with me, was when in 2008 some twit decided that my beloved Boletus impolitus was not a Boletus any more, but was in fact a Hemileccinum. Numerous other name changes have been thrown at us in recent months. All i want to be able to do, is walk into a wood...See a B. impolitus, and tell a friend what it is. I can no longer tell them the recognised 'common' names of some species, not that this matters so much. Increasingly it is becoming more difficult to put a name to a mushroom. While i shall continue to be interested in mycology, i no longer think i'm qualified to write on the subject,,, let alone contribute to an encyclopedia. Field guides are going out of date faster than ever, as is most literature on the subject. References are confused, and muddled. For me ,,, all of us amateurs need a period of rest to let the researchers do their work, and after a time things 'might' be more settled, and clear. That will be the time when we can all re-learn our subject, and extend our knowledge. Cheers Luridiformis (talk) 08:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

See I am fascinated by all the DNA stuff revealing what is related to what - the big Moncalvo studies and how they split things up. All a binomial is is an 'address' anyway...we-ell I was a bit sad to see erythropus --> luridiformis (hehehe). Given how out of date books are getting, it is all the more important to keep the wiki updated,...and it will settle down. This all happened with many plant genera in the early 90s. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Me too,,, i am fascinated. Like a snake in front of a mongoose, but i dont think i can be so 'updated' that i can contribute for some while. I'm not about to write stuff in Wiki that will be out-dated within a month or so. I wonder too, where all the references will be coming from. Not from field guides, that's for sure, but from this or last months published paper on 'whatever'. Stay chilled Luridiformis (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Pretties For You!

The Sandwich of Exceptional Excellence (Potato Salad of Congenitality cluster, 1st. Class) 'In Panis, Veritas.'

I award you this prestigious sandwich in recognition of the fantastic work you do. I am impressed! Keep up the good work, noble wiki-warrior! Best Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 04:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Burning Up

Addressed your concerns. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Addressed your concerns for "Borderline". --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Easy-peasy. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Boletus edulis

Hi Cas, I'm looking for candidates to buff up to GA in my quest to win the WikiCup, and noticed this article in nice shape (and ~400 page views/day!). How about I take it through GA, and sometime after, when your time permits, a collaborative pass through FAC? This would all happen of course after Malljaja and I get finished with Fungus (which should be ready to go any day now... I think). I'll probably need 20-25 GA's to be competitive this round, so I'm going back to scouring the B-articles and old DYK's... TTYL Sasata (talk) 01:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely - this was one of my intended GA/FA etc. ones too. Will take another look at fungus soon, then for some tasty porcini... :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Leicester City F.C. GA review

I saw your point about the citation of sources,they are probably all made by me and I'm not that familiar with the Cite web format, can you tell me is it simply a question of replacing "news" with "web" or are there other headers i need to use?

You'll get used to it (hehehe) - I will do a couple later tonight (aussie time) and you can see what I do. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hows it coming along bud? Jimmy Skitz's Answer Machine 10:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes i saw the question but have no idea to the truth of the claim and wouldn't have any idea where to look, I'll take a look at the dead links you mentioned though. Jimmy Skitz's Answer Machine 13:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: I have found a site to link to but only needs 1 link. Jimmy Skitz's Answer Machine 13:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

teh diff of teh day ;)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1632 series battles

Ye-ha, Jack Merridew 16:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sorry if I edited that gomphidius glutinosus page out of turn. I've not often added anything to wikipedia and I've only just this minute discovered the fungus group. I had no idea that things were this organised the last time I added anything was years back and there was nothing like this then. Strike it out if you like I won't mind.

Regards Joedjemal (talk) 16:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Herrerasaurus

Hey Cas,

Thanks so much for your efforts at Herrera. Question for you: Yesterday you added "The situation is further complicated by uncertainties in correlating the ages of late Triassic beds bearing land animals" to the article, sourced to Langer's chapter in The Dinosauria. An editor has added a [clarifyme] tag to the article at that point, but I can't clarify it because I don't see this discussion in Langer's chapter. Can you help me out? Firsfron of Ronchester 21:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It is the beginning of the third paragraph of page 25. It writes "The dating of tetrapod-bearing Late Triassic continental deposits is poorly constrained.....Contrary to the claims of some, there is not a strong basis for the correlation of most Carnian strat worldwide..." hope this helps. Do you think my interpreting of that as amiss? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Cas; I went through the chapter three times and never saw that paragraph. No, I'd say your interpretation is correct. Now I'm just stymied on how to work this in with the clarification tag, which is requesting numbers not present in the source. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Cas. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 01:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

brain fungus

Any chance you can confirm or deny my identification of this as Tremella mesenterica? I'm pretty sure, and have even put it in the article already, but I won't say no to a second opinion. Hesperian 23:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Ta. Hesperian 00:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you think File:Unidentified Fungus 3697.jpg is Tremella mesenterica? Noodle snacks (talk) 03:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it - a fine picture :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not a doctor, but I play one on TV

If you have a mo' to read this recent rewrite--kinda short for what I tend to go on about--please let me know if I am abusing language that has specific meaning in psychiatry. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Whoa...... (audible sharp intake of breath)

Interesting read. On first reading, I think you've done a good job and everything meaning what it is supposed to mean etc. What sprung to my mind upon reading is the tricky distinction between malingering and factitious disorder, which can be harder at times to judge 'by remote' as it were (especially when terms like 'taking advantage of' are used, which leads me to thinking about anitsocial personalities. Truth be told, there is alot of overlap and grey in DSM IV, and I can see this holds true for the two bluelinked terms above. Still, I am rambling a bit as this makes me more think in psychiatrist mode than wikipedian mode, where one has to stick to the sources in terms of speculation. (scratches chin in wise manner) I have to think about this some more. Some more critique or opposing points of view may be good - if any discussions mention analysing or excluding malingering that would be good. More later (only up now, 'cos I couldn't sleep...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I have taken this article on only today, but found a few sources, which are cited. A search in my university library brings up a couple others I do not have access to immediately. Might you have access to these:

• Munchausen's syndrome by Google. Griffiths EJ, Kampa R, Pearce C, Sakellariou A, Solan MC. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2009 Mar;91(2):159-60.
• A simulated case of chronic myeloid leukemia: the growing risk of Munchausen's syndrome by internet. Caocci G, Pisu S, La Nasa G. Leuk Lymphoma. 2008 Sep;49(9):1826-8.
• Munchausen's syndrome by proxy web-mediated in a child with factitious hyperglycemia. Vanelli M. J Pediatr. 2002 Dec;141(6):839. (I have access to the paper copy, not electronic, and I would have to walk all the way to the medical library!!! to get it! Perish the thought!)

There's a chapter in a book by the same guy, Feldman, dedicated to this, but I'm assuming he's summarizing all the stuff he already wrote about it. I will get the chapter and read it, but I'm curious to know what else there is. I'm going to continue to look, but my primary concern is paraphrasing language to avoid plagiarizing, thereby compromising the true intent of psychiatric language. Thanks for reading and thinking on it. Go to bed now. --Moni3 (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, almost 6am. I just might....

I will see what we have at work. I also mused on asking some colleagues to take a look. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Mintrick

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knife fights in popular culture

This is not the first, or even the second, time that xe has done this. This has been a continuing pattern for a year or more, now. We've had

• Dryads in popular culture (AfD discussion)
• Nuclear Football in popular culture (AfD discussion)
• King's Lynn in popular culture (AfD discussion)
• Tang in popular culture (AfD discussion)
• Satyrs in popular culture (AfD discussion)
• Syrinx in popular culture (AfD discussion)
• Shinigami in popular culture (AfD discussion)
• Strigoi in popular culture (AfD discussion)
• Duck and Cover in popular culture (AfD discussion)
• Balor in popular culture (AfD discussion)

As you can see from several of the AFD discussions and User talk:Uncle G#On the wisdom of compromise, I've tried to explain, several times, to xem how these AFD discussions inevitably end up, but xe continues to waste the time of a lot of editors by spinning off articles and burden-shifting rather than dealing with content issues properly, directly in the article where the content was originally written. Uncle G (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Believe me, I know. I try and source what I can but following all the splitting etc. is very labour intensive. Has someone else told him his approach is a problem? I can't recall if I have said it in general. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, I definitely have. I don't know about others. I haven't looked. Uncle G (talk) 00:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Right, I can see two approaches. I was wondering about making an MOS proposal about IPC articles in general (i.e not split unless clearly notable subject), or otherwise an RfC on the behaviour. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
      • RFC, I suspect. This is not an article or style problem, or one that involves multiple editors all doing the same thing. It's one editor, whose specific approach to material that xe doesn't like is to make more work for everyone else. It really shouldn't be conflated with good faith splitting, done by an editor who genuinely thinks that a section should be broken out into a separate article for size reasons, which is what would happen with a style guideline discussion. Uncle G (talk) 15:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

specific delusions

Hi, please check 'specific delusions' under 'delusion' it is a December copy and is more readable, it's not original research as under 'Delusion' X is a type of Y. Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, will do later today. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Christopher Smart's asylum confinement‎

If it is not too much to ask, can you please list a few positives and negatives of the page on its talk page? I want to get three quasi "peer reviews" of the article before I relist it. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I was musing on this overnight as I was tying to get to sleep actually. I will place some notes soon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

George Motion 4

Hi, would you please consider, provided you haven't already, my proposed motion 4? You seem anxious to get this case over with, that is understandable, but let's not allow the cost of haste to be injustice to one of Wikipedia's most venerable and best writers. Thank you,--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Cloud Gate FA thanks

Cloud Gate has achieved WP:FA status and you have been an active editor of the article. Thank you for your involvement.

This user helped promote Cloud Gate to featured article status.

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sydney Meetup

I think you may have been notified by email, but I thought it was worth my dropping in a note anywhoo, to let you know that Sydney Wikipedians are having a meetup this coming Tuesday, the 4th August. As you'll see on that page, we have two folk flying in from the Wikimedia Foundation who will be attending, and we have a great crowd of wiki types signed up to come along.

If you've never been to a meetup before, this wouldn't be a bad one to kick off with (we're all very friendly, interesting, and great looking folk ;-), and if you have, well come along again, why don't ya! If you've any questions you can flick the aussie mailing list an email on wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org aussie mailing list, or drop me a note on my talk page. Hope to see some of you there!

ps. If you've already signed up, and received an email, and a phone call, and a door knock, and are getting a bit frustrated with constant advances from enthusiastic australian wiki types, then I'm told you can print this message, and bring it along to use as a 'free beer' voucher, redeemable by our esteemed Vice-President of WMAU on the night...... ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Alpha Centauri

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) Arianewiki1 18:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

O-kay...taken it to the talk page.Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi seems you're an expert for the bird species your help is needed to fix this or upgrade Hawaiʻi ʻakepa article thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.148.188.171 (talk) 13:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)