User talk:Casliber/Archive 35

Thank You

Thank you so much for placing the Black mamba article under protected status. I have an expertise in herpetology and I've worked long and hard to better that article and it's where its at today largely because of my long and hard work and dedication to the article. I have nominated it for "Good Article" status and still waiting for a reviewer, but with people constantly vandalizing or arguing over silly things, it will not pass. I believe it deserves "good article" status, but like I said vandals continue to put the article at risk of failing. I hope you putting it under protected status wouldn't somehow give a potential reviewer a reason to fail it. What do you think? Bastian (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Not at all, semi protection is used for vandalism not content wars, and many good and featured articles have had long periods of semiprotection - particularly medical articles and animals familiar to schoolchildren (lion and blue whale for example). The idea is that editing is as open as possible, but if the drain on resources outweighs the benefit, then semiprotection is prudent given the limited time we all have. Semiprotection is the most useful tool I have found, and the main reason I became an admin. It also helps with pagemoves if one has to delete to rejig pages. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, schoolchildren and even laymen adults often have unrealistic views of some animal species (like you mentioned Lion, blue whale, and I'd like to add Tiger, Elephant, King cobra, and unfortunately, the Black mamba too). From what I've dealt with in the Black mamba and King cobra articles is that there is very little regard for scientific work. A blog backing their claim will suffice as a "reference" to these schoolchildren and adults (the guy I dealt with in the snake articles was an adult, believe it or not). It took a lot of patience on my part and the help of an admin to fend the guy off. He was obsessed with making the King cobra this super venomous snake that killed people in 5 minutes and on and on and on. I re-wrote the "Venom" section of that article, but otherwise left it alone. I focused on the Black mamba. Anyways, I'm just rambling now. It's good to know that the semi-protection of the article won't effect its nomination for GA status. Thanks. Bastian (talk) 23:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

PS: Have you got university access to fulltexts of journals etc.? A few of us do, I am with University of New South Wales so I can get Australian journals the easiest but a few of us are happy to help ferreting out articles for folks. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Macaroni Penguin

This is a note to let the main editors of Macaroni Penguin know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on December 2, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 2, 2011. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Macaroni Penguin is a species of penguin found from the Subantarctic to the Antarctic Peninsula. One of six species of crested penguin, it bears a distinctive yellow crest, and the face and upperparts are black and sharply delineated from the white underparts. Its diet consists of a variety of crustaceans, mainly krill, as well as small fish and cephalopods; the species consumes more marine life annually than any other species of seabird. Numbering up to 100,000 individuals, the breeding colonies of the Macaroni Penguin are among the largest and densest of all penguin species. After spending the summer months breeding, penguins disperse into the oceans for six months; a 2009 study found that Macaroni Penguins from Kerguelen travelled over 10,000 km (6,200 mi) in the central Indian Ocean. With about 18 million individuals, the Macaroni Penguin is the most numerous penguin species. However, widespread decline in populations have been recorded since the mid 1970s. These factors result in their conservation status being reclassified as vulnerable. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Set it up how it makes sense for you

I will try to get behind it and participate as a contestant if it is anything "core"ish. Not going to be a prima donna on details (Wiki people do that too much). I think if you just set it up and bring people to your vision that is better than debating process. If you can get Malleus involved, that would be great. He is top notch. But if he is fundamentally opposed or if he is not going to work on it, even if it is designed how he wants, then don't alter the design for him. (Not meant catty, just this seems common sense.)TCO (talk) 07:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

P.s. 5 random VAs, FAs, and GAs (and I have Excel to prove the randomiation). And I can give a longer list. But it's actually easier to process visually with 5 than 10.

I think it is clear the Vital Articles are "vital" and the FA, GAs not. I mean if you had to delete forever 5 articles from that goup of 15, which would they be? I warrant they would all be from the FA, GAs. None from the VAs. I think this gun to the head thought experiment shows intuitively what matters more.TCO (talk) 08:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

At least three of those GAs fall under the "cookie-cutter" category (as I've heard it be called), while only one could be said to from the FA category (if the concept even makes sense with FAs). On the other hand, four of the FAs (neglecting the hurricane as I know nothing of them) look to be fairly important- a top-5 article concerning a major nation, a well-known popular film, a moderately significant piece of architecture and a fairly significant event from an under-repersented area of the world. Yes, the differences between the three categories are clear, but the FAs don't look to be completely trivial. J Milburn (talk) 08:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

TCO, to me personally, the FAs look the most interesting. I do agree about buffing the big/broad articles, which is why I am considering this all. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

PS: You were s'posed to go and buff some snapping turtle or other IIRC....

I'm with Cas - the only one of those VAs that I'd want to go and read would be Pericles - in fact, I'm off there as soon as I'm done here. I'd happily read any of those FAs, except, perhaps the hurricane. None of the GAs appeal to me - except Sunny Lee whose name means nothing to me (I presume it's a person) so I might click on it to find who it is. --Dweller (talk) 11:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I just love the fact that the only VA that appealed to me happens to be an FA as well. --Dweller (talk) 11:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Asplenium australasicum

Thank you from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 00:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

RFA thankspam

Thank you for your support at my recent successful RFA. Being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Adenanthos obovatus

This is a note to let the main editors of Adenanthos obovatus know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on December 5, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 5, 2011. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Adenanthos obovatus is a shrub of the Proteaceae family endemic to Southwest Australia. It grows as a many-stemmed spreading bush up to 1 m (3 ft) high, and about 1.5 m (5 ft) across, with fine bright green foliage. Made up of single red flowers, the inflorescences appear from April to December, and peak in spring (August to October). The shrub grows on sandy soils in seasonally wet lowland areas as well as hills and dunes. It regenerates after bushfire by resprouting from its underground lignotuber. Pollinators include honeyeaters, particularly the Western Spinebill, which can access the nectar with its long curved bill, and the Silvereye, which punctures the flower tube. The most commonly cultivated Adenanthos species in Australia, it has a long flowering period and attracts honeyeaters to the garden. It is harvested for the cut flower industry. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

TFA/R

I take it you are noming articles to give our director and delegate something they can lay their hands on quickly? May I help? I can easily withdraw that coin for a couple of weeks. If you have blurbs prepared, I can nom in my name, for example.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I haven't any others prepared, just whipped up a couple on a whim, so go for your life with some others :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I'll poke through in the morning.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Giraffe FA

I added the information. What do you think? LittleJerry (talk) 02:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Better. Sorry, got well and truly sidetracked - be there later today. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Valid use of alternative account?

This is a courtesy notification as I believe you are peripherally involved in the following AN/I thread.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding Valid use of alternative account?. The thread is "Is Sleuth21 using an alternate account properly?".The discussion is about the topic User talk:Iridescent. Thank you. --Senra (Talk) 14:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The discussion isn't on ANI - it's on AN, at WP:AN#Is Sleuth21 using an alternate account properly? --Redrose64 (talk) 14:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Currawong, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Dharawal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

New Committee

Hello Casliber, I was wandering if I could form a council instead of a committee that would come under your guidance?

Is this possible as I'd like to take a position on it

If you think its okay could you reply on my talk page

Thank you

AlexTheGrand (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)AlexTheGrandAlexTheGrand (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Err, a council for/of what? I can't follow what this is in relation to. Can you please elaborate? Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh if there is no need now then it doesn't matter, I'm only offering if you ever need it

AlexTheGrand (talk) 11:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)AlexTheGrandAlexTheGrand (talk) 11:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Alex I still have no idea what this is in relation to, can you elaborate? Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe he is hoping to form an anti Arbitration Committee (following the principle of antipopes etc.) and wants you to head it to give it credibility? Hans Adler 14:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

If I get to live or visit Avignon, then I might be interested.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for Persoonia levis

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Persoonia levis. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

heh, and I got another one coming...Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

fun

who likes science?

answer here: --ScienceGeek (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Science Rocks

	Science Award
	great! you have put science in your article! I LOVE SCIENCE! ScienceGeek (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: science--ScienceGeek (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

ouch. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Request

Can you delete my user page please. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Tricholoma atrosquamosum

The DYK project (nominate) 08:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination as a United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month candidate

Greetings, as someone who has signed up to be a member of the United States Wikipedians' collaboration of the Month, I wanted to let you know that several articles have been nominated to be a future Collaboration of the Month article. All editors interested in voting for or improving these article are encouraged to participate. You can cast your vote here. --Kumioko (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Queue 5

The third hook seems to be missing some of its text. It stops before reaching the end of the sentence, probably a cut-and-paste error somewhere along the way. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, will check. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Ahalya

Hi Casliber. I saw your name in Wikipedia:Peer_review/volunteers#Philosophy_and_religion. I am trying to move the article to FA status and have initiated a peer review. Your critic would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Peer review/Ahalya/archive1. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for initiating the peer review and your constructive edits. The article needs a read from someone like you who has never heard of Ahalya. Looking forward to hearing more constructive comments and edits on Ahaly by you. Thanks again for your prompt response. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

for the very constructive review of Tranmere Rovers F.C. U+003F^? 13:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

... and ("anyone up for an impromptu collaboration?") how do you fancy working on pease pudding together? U+003F^? 01:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds appetising...I'll take a look. There is a real dearth of food articles at GA/FA standard. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll dig out Good Housekeeping and get back to you. U+003F^? 01:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review of Schlumbergera

Thanks for picking up this review! The nomination had been around for a while. (My thanks are independent of the outcome, but naturally I'm pleased by that too.) Peter coxhead (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

No worries - if you want to prepare it for FAC I can give a few pointers. Maybe a species table like the one at Eos_(genus)? Can you get images of all species? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'd really like images of all the species, but can't find copy-right free sources. I have been in e-mail contact with some of the people who've written about the genus, but no joy yet. So I'm working on some other stuff for the present. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK Q2

Hello, Casliber. I returned the five hooks on Q2 to prep. That's not a complete set. --PFHLai (talk) 01:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Oops. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Your DYK nom for Blephilia hirsuta

Hi Cas, I've reviewed the nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Blephilia hirsuta and I would like some feedback on the hook and paraphrasing. Could you please see my comments and reply there? Thanks Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Petrophile pulchella

The DYK project (nominate) 16:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Dmitri Shostakovich

Hello. Sorry to pop up here when you're probably busy, but I thought I'd let you know that a) the merger has taken place (thanks for your vote on this); b) you may be interested in the Talk:Dmitri Shostakovich#Time for a Featured Article Review?. All best, Alfietucker (talk) 00:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

William Hamlin

Thanks for the DYK for William Hamlin. User:7&6=thirteen was another author that jointly worked with me on this article that should also get a DYK for it. I nominated him also, but apparently it was missed. Thanks for looking into it.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Daviesia corymbosa

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Leucopogon amplexicaulis

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you have some time for a peer review?

Casliber: I've noticed your work at FAC, and your writing skills are obviously outstanding. I'm preparing the article W. E. B. Du Bois for (my first) FA. I've submitted it to WP:PR to get it checked first before going to FAC. Do you have time to do the peer review? Or, if not a detailed review, at least glance at it and see if you notice any issues? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, --Noleander (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Cockatoo eating a plant

Re File:Calyptorhynchus funereus -Australia -female-8.jpg. I have uploaded this good image to Commons from Flickr. Do you know what plant this cocktoo is eating? Snowman (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The woody thing the cocky is munching on is an old spike of Banksia integrifolia. The fallen leaves around it are of a Norfolk Island Pine, however. This is likely an urban photograph. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I have shown the image on the article about the cockatoo and attempted to write a caption. We do not have these plants in in the UK, and I do not know if it is called a seed pod or not. Snowman (talk) 23:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Blephilia hirsuta

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK credit for Fisher & Fisher

Hi, thanks for promoting my double nomination of William Ellsworth Fisher and Fisher & Fisher, but could you please add a credit for Doncram, who created the latter as I noted at the nomination page? I have no idea how to do it myself, but I deliberately made the nomination in time for him to get a credit. I expanded it, but he created it. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Scarlet Ibis

Hi there, I apologize for stepping all over your edits, I didn't know I was doing it! I should've been checking the history log. I'm finished for the night, so please continue editing at your leisure. Again, I'm awfully sorry about the edit conflicts. SteveStrummer (talk) 03:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Heh, no problem and easily fixed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad, thank you :) I hope you like the article and continue to work on it. Any critical review you could offer of my contribution would be genuinely appreciated. SteveStrummer (talk) 04:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I just saw the DYK nomination - thank you again! SteveStrummer (talk) 04:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I buffed up American White Ibis to GA (and probably not far off FAC actually), which someone else started and I carried on with - incidentally, Scarlet Ibis has been expanded fivefold and hence I've rustled up a DYK nom at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_December_15 yeah you've seen :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

And you picked my favorite picture, too! :D SteveStrummer (talk) 04:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, great pic - you've motivated me, so maybe we should get both ibises up to FAC....feel free to comment or tweak the white one and I'll try to dig up more on the scarlet one too. HehehehCasliber (talk · contribs) 07:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Black Swan

Would Black Swan be something for you? Bird, Australian and a huge audience (although not as great as a year ago). --Ettrig (talk) 11:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe some time. I'll have a look. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so it gets nearly 32000 views a month. Even better, swan gets 40000. Might have a look at some of the most-watched. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK credit

Thanks for the DYK credit for Experiment (horse powered boat), however User:7&6=thirteen was the co-creator. Could you credit him with the DYK also. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Something went arrrye as User:DMacks had nothing to do with the article itself; although he nominated it with an excellent hook.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The credit is for the nomination. That info box differs from the created/expanded one, and refers to a different category, the lower one on the Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, now I get it. Thanks also for fixing and giving User:7&6=thirteen credit. We'll have a few more in the future.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 14:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, no problems and good luck, cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the DYK credit for 1836 U.S. Patent Office fire. There were 3 creators of the article. The other two were User:7&6=thirteen and User:Daniel Case. Thanking you ahead of time for giving them credit also, as apparently you missed accidently.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 19:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review Pakistan

Hello Casliber, I saw you name in Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers. I would really appreciate if you could take time to peer review the article. I want to prepare it for FAC and needs suggestions for improvement. Thanks.September88 (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean to bug you, but since the article has been majorly overhauled since you made your commments and the peer review is still open, I was wondering if you could just take a quick little overview again and suggest if any major improvements are still needed? I would totally understand if you can't though as I see your busy tag above. Thankyou. September88 (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

ok. I'll have a look at some stage in the next few days. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! September88 (talk) 00:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Frasera caroliniensis

Orlady (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC) 09:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Syncarpia glomulifera

Gatoclass (talk) 16:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Commersonia fraseri

Gatoclass (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Florence Violet McKenzie

Hi Cas,

I've recently imported across from the Dictionary of Sydney and Wikified the article Florence Violet McKenzie - a fascinating biography. It got a DYK last week and user:Grahamec went in and rated it as B class. I was wondering if you could give it the once-over and see whether it's up to scratch for a Good Article nomination. I've never been heavily involved in writing a good or featured article so I'm not confident in my assessment of my 'own' article. Sincerely, Wittylama 23:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I wondered about the redlink. Just looking at it over the first few seconds makes me think it's worth a shot, and there's a Good Article reviewing drive on at present, so may as well list it. I might even pick it up there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok! I've taken the plunge and listed my first GA nomination :-) here she is: Wikipedia:GAN#Engineering. Wittylama 02:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Noisy Miner

Another Honeyeater expanded, I'd love it if you'd time for a copy edit. Marj (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Aha cool. This could be a good FA. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Noisy Miner was passed at GA but without a real review. Still needs other eyes on it. Marj (talk) 20:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Scarlet Ibis

Orlady (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Ranunculus allenii

Orlady (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC) 08:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Pied Butcherbird, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page John Williamson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Go-Busters

You hit protect after some IP edited the page and I missed reverting it. That is why I wanted semi-protection only because none of the established editors were edit warring because they know better. Reduce it to semiprotection so we can at least fix the damn page.—Ryulong (竜龙) 01:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Have reverted it to the sourced version now. If no reliable sources are forthcoming in 48 hours I will change it to semi-protection for two weeks. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. It is still a bit of overkill in my opinion, particularly when all established editors have been discussing things on the talk page and IPs have only been ignoring everything else.—Ryulong (竜龙) 01:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, would you mind doing a minor edit by changing '''{{nihongo||特命戦隊ゴーバスターズ|Tokumei Sentai Gōbasutāzu}}''' to '''{{nihongo|<!--English title to go here-->|特命戦隊ゴーバスターズ|Tokumei Sentai Gōbasutāzu}}'''?—Ryulong (竜龙) 01:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

No problems - done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI, 48 hours is almost up.—Ryulong (竜龙) 05:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Abortion discussion

Hi Cas. I had a bit of a thought over the past few days. While the Abortion case closed only three weeks ago, the backlog that ArbCom has experienced recently combined with the elections recently and the holiday period has obviously delayed the setting up of the discussion, I had an alternative idea. I think that the proposal I created, Wikipedia:Binding RFCs has a relatively hammered out process (though like everything could use fine tuning) and the format could be a somewhat modified version of the RFC that Qwrxyian set up at Senkaku Islands, though the "voting" period may possibly be structured like AFD or something. I was considering possibly requesting an amendment to the Abortion case, vacating remedy 5.1 and replacing it with this community option. The new proposal needs a test case, and I think Abortion would fit perfectly, but it really is ArbCom's decision at this point. I'm happy to help set the discussion up if ArbCom is agreeable, and realise that I would need to go to RFAR formally request this but still thought I should see what you thought first. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 02:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Steve - the decision already delegates the process to community anyway, so we needn't replace anything, and once the final decision is made, log it as the final outcome to the Arbitration page. That page looks ok, so I'd be happy (in fact I'd be very grateful) if you wanna have a go setting it up in a manner similar to that as a test case. I'll have a look over it and tweak it and then we can set teh debate in motion over a six week (or whatever we agreed on) period. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm...I'm not so sure if that would work quite right. In essence the processes would work rather differently. The one led (or setup by ArbCom) would have admins appointed by the committee to close the discussion, whereas the community process would be closed by an admin, a user experienced in the subject area and a user active in dispute resolution, but these users wouldn't be appointed (except perhaps the subject expert, which could be agreed upon by the disputants). It's more a community process as well. Logging the decision at the arbitration case is appropriate at present, but I'm not sure it would quite fit within making the discussion a true test case of the community process. The ArbCom decision doesn't really do much about addressing the issue of repeated discussion about the titles (which is really why I took it to ArbCom in the first place). I'm happy to draw up the framework for such a discussion, but IMHO it may work better if ArbCom vacated remedy 5.1 and deferred the issue directly to a binding RFC. It's untested, but if we're going to give it a go we should go the whole hog. Very happy to work with the committee to help set this up so it doesn't get out of control, but I still think that vacating the remedy would be the best way to do this. Empowering the community to resolve its own problems is also a factor here. Let me know what you think. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 09:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh bloody hell, I see that "appointed by Committee" bit...hmmmmm......(long pause)....hmmmmmmmmm...okay, I think the best way forward is to initiate a Wikipedia:RFAR#Requests_for_amendment and propose the amendment of 5.1 to a binding RfC structured by you (note that I didn't use the insanely annoying habit of sticking the reflexive pronoun "yourself" when a simple one will do. I feel ...frustrated.....when people do it trying to sound erudite...aargh) and to be closed by an admin. Given the only two people with any interest in this segment of the case appear to be you and me (and I as an arb shouldn't really be too involved in it on a hands-on/editorial role) I think this will be accepted with a collective sigh of relief. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hm, I just want to make sure we're on the same page here. The binding RFC would be closed by three users, not one, as it was suggested that having one user being able to decide on something this sweeping may not be for the best. The three would be an admin, a subject expert (say a participant from WikiProject medicine) and a user active in dispute resolution, who would ensure other steps of DR had been tried. While that doesn't apply in this case (all other DR has been tried) to be a true test case It probably should have three closers. It reminded me of a discussion within a MedCab case from August 2008 (it's sad I could pluck that out of thin air, isn't it...I forgot about that case for ages) where three bureaucrats evaluated the discussion and closed it as per their evaluation of consensus. That's kinda my idea of how it could be closed. I think that perhaps a watchlist notice could also be used to encourage users to participate in the RFC. I agree that the result of the discussion should be logged at the arbitration case, but perhaps it should also be logged somewhere like Wikipedia:General sanctions? I think that enforcement should be probably done by the community, though ArbCom can keep an eye on it (and for what it's worth I've got most of the articles on my watchlist so I'd pick up on any issues pretty quick.) What do you think? Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 21:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The other example is the recent closure of Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_53#RFC_-_Compromise_proposal_re_first_sentence which was closed by three admins. I think this was a good process (though I was not thrilled about the outcome). Closing by three admins I think is a big step in the right direction in how we accrue structure without it being overly bureaucratic. And feel free to go find them. Yes, the final decision would be logged at both the Wikipedia:General sanctions and as a postscript to the Aportion RFAR. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't see that RFC. That structure is very good indeed, I'll probably use a similar format to that. I was kinda thinking that instead of selecting three admins, only the user is was experienced in the topic area, in this case Medicine would be selected before the RFC (Doc James came to mind), mainly because the parties cannot then down the road say they disagree with that particular user closing the RFC. Any uninvolved admin could be one of the three closers, and the other closer should be someone experienced in dispute resolution, though not necessarialy an admin. I think that it would provide a bit of variety between the three users. I also still think using a watchlist notice for the RFC is a good idea. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 00:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

On another note, I think it may be wise for me to get this (the binding RFC proposal) ratified at the Village Pump formally first before requesting an amendment at RFAR. What do you think? Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 04:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, you think it is necessary? I don't think anyone disagreed with the WT:V process, or some others. It is up to you, but if you made it into a Proposal for the abortion RFAR and asked for an Amendment and it passed, I tend to think that is enough necessary hurdles to jump over, but if you feel it is necessary then do what you fell you need to do by all means. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've kinda already proposed it at the Village Pump, but there's no going back. If discussion doesn't pick up over the next day or so, I'll just go to requesting it at /Amendment, but I would have thought it would have received a response like "You're proposing a process be used that doesn't even have the support of the community yet" or something similar, so the VP seemed the logical place to go. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 05:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I have filed the amendment request. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 19:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm really not getting much of a response from ArbCom about the proposed amendment. What do you think I should do now? Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 06:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Cirsium muticum

Orlady (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Pied Butcherbird

Orlady (talk) 08:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Euploea alcathoe

Merry Christmas Victuallers (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

re: on your solitation regarding the MF AC case request

I am content that you are capable of being fair and impartial on the matter at hand, and as such have no demand that you recuse. just IMHO — Ched :  ?  04:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

(groan) no seriously, if'n I get a coupla more comments like that I will reconsider. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Template use at FAC

Hi Cas. I noticed that you use the {{xt}} template at FAC a lot. I thought there was some rule about using templates at FAC (such as {{done}}) due to the way templates can affect the load time of the main FAC page? Is that template an exception to that rule or not? I would have asked at WT:FAC, but thought I'd ask you first. Carcharoth (talk) 06:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The {{done}} and similar templates use images. When dozens (and even hundreds) of them are included on the page, it can become nearly impossible to open it on a slower connection. The {{xt}} does not call upon images although it too can slow things down if used a lot. Risker (talk) 06:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

I think you know what for. Marrante (talk) 09:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Back from vacation here. Rather ironic that after all that, the traffic statistics were having a bad day and the article shows a whopping two hits for its appearance on DYK. The whole experience left a rather bad taste in my mouth. I also read what other nominators wrote when their articles were challenged by the same party, particularly, one nominator who was a journalist by profession. I had long felt that people who fail to become active editors on WP because of the atmosphere in some corners were in many cases suffering from a thin skin, so this experience was very enlightening. Apparently, sometimes the cause is not a thin skin at all, but an awakened sense of what is important in life—and it's not Wikipedia. Marrante (talk) 13:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I reckon you can presume at least 500 pagehits at a minimum and 5000 is good (don't believe the pagehits saying 2). Main thing is to enjoy writing. I've tried lightening the tone. If you stick around, that'd be great. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I know the article didn't get 2 page hits, but that's all that were recorded. My norm is between 1,500 and 5,000, sometimes going well over. Just a few of them have been under 1,000 and they are normally on topics that have different appeal. Your tone wasn't a problem at all. In fact, tone was never the problem. My issue was being yanked twice from prep (by the same very busy person). I had input from another administrator and long-time Wikipedian and then the article sat there like poisoned goods until you entered the picture. Unfortunately, the article finally made it to the main page just as the traffic logs were experiencing a hiccup and for three days, virtually no page hits were counted. I'm sure that article was in the thousands, based on previous experience with similar hooks/articles/placement within DYK. I was just making a comment to you, but it was not about you. My apologies for not having made that more clear. Marrante (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Aah, I wrote that thinking you were a neophyte at wikipedia (not having seen your name around before), but had clearly put 2 and 2 together and gotten 5....(chuckle).... Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

RFAR Malleus

Casliber...you're one of the Wikipedians I admire the most and I am here asking you to not participate in the RFAR on Malleus. While I respect that you would be impartial in your determinations, it may prove difficult for you since you seem to have had a much better personal experience with Malleus than others, including me.MONGO 12:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Striking through...I have reconsidered.--MONGO 04:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for giving your opinion, it's being taken into account. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I second that adn add what I wrote on the page.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

That is, I second that you let this cup pass from your lips, rather than the specific rationale.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I saw. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Asking you to participate: please see User_talk:Newyorkbrad#Malleus_Fatuorum_arbitration. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 23:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with it (don't want to clutter up the request page). Good luck. My, between Malleus and the incipient leadership RFC, we are having interesting times at FAC!--Wehwalt (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Eucalyptus saligna

Hello! Your submission of Eucalyptus saligna 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! Rcej (Robert) – talk 08:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Humpback whale

Hi Cas! I just stumbled across Humpback whale, which has a bunch of cleanup tags, and saw that a work needed notification had been posted almost exactly a year ago. I also saw that you had responded, saying that you would be interested in seeing the article kept. Not much has been done on the article since then, however, and I am wondering if you are interested in working on it to keep it from FAR. Otherwise, it probably needs one, given the number of issues (tagged and not) within the article. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Aah again, this one is a vandal magnet. I'll take a look to see how much work is needed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Red-capped Robin

This is a note to let the main editors of Red-capped Robin know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on December 25, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 25, 2011. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Red-capped Robin is a small passerine bird native to Australia. Found in dryer regions across much of the continent, it inhabits scrub and open woodland. Like many brightly coloured robins of the Petroicidae family, it is sexually dimorphic. Measuring 10.5–12.5 cm (4–5 in) in length, the robin has a small thin black bill, and dark brown eyes and legs. The male has a distinctive red cap and red breast, black upperparts, and a black tail with white tips. The underparts and shoulders are white. The female is an undistinguished grey-brown. This species uses a variety of songs, and males generally sing to advertise territories and attract females. Birds are encountered in pairs or small groups, but the social behaviour has been little studied. The position of the Red-capped Robin and its Australian relatives on the passerine family tree is unclear; the Petroicidae are not closely related to either the European or American Robins but appear to be an early offshoot of the Passerida group of songbirds. The Red-capped Robin is a predominantly ground-feeding bird and its prey consists of insects and spiders. Although widespread, it is uncommon in much of its range and has receded in some areas from human activity. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for Crescent Honeyeater

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Crescent Honeyeater. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

to you and yours too. I did think of adding a tasteful picture, but what could follow our themed RL card (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas
	...and a merry Vic Christmas bush white Christmas from south of the border to you. Melburnian (talk) 07:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and one question

Hello Casliber and Season's Greetings to you. I just wanted to ask about an odd-seeming sentence in the NSW Xmas bush article. Talking about the wilted flower (singular), is it really supposed to say: "They also have a small point that doesn't affect the body but give them a sharp prick"? Because it looks as if the sentence needs to be rewritten to make it clear what exactly it is supposed to be saying, but I can't really work out what that would be. Many thanks to you and all good wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 14:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow I didn't notice that - was going to leave it for around 350 days before I looked at it again. I sympathise as I can't figure it out either. I'll try and read source material soonish and get my head around what it might be....just a bit on my plate at present. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Magi: Lost Kings or Aliens w/ GPS

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.

Happy Holidays..--Buster Seven Talk 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Best for the New Year as well

G'day, ya lucky mongrel. I imagine ya out at Bondi with a dozen tinnies, and a medpad, sorry Ipad, batten the breeze with a couple a mates and the ball and chain while the snags sizzle on the barbie, the surf's up for a refreshing dip, and the radio is broadcasting a dazzling hit by a greenn'gold batsman at the Gabba, and existentially, bob's a close rellie. I'm up shitcreek in a barb-wire-canoe: the chimney fell in, the house had a gaping hole, the freeze set in, the boiler threw a tantrum, and I have to rub two boy scouts together to get some warmth out of the one functional hearth in the 'abode'. But, chin up, head down, bum to seats, nose to the grindstone: it'll only get worse over here, so we should enjoy the lighter miseries of the present! Best Nishidani (talk) 18:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

It's been pretty chilly and rainy this summer...which is fine with me as I really get sick of the 3 month sauna this can otherwise be....though I suspect my and your recent experience of "chilly" differ by around 20 C, 2-3 blankets and the need for a heating system....commiserations, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

This is to say a special thank you for your work on Fancy Dress Festival DYK. I am so grateful. A friend called  CrossTempleJay  → talk 10:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

No problems - fascinating article - reminds me of the indians in Treme. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

A principle propsal that could benefit from your professional expertise

[1]. Best wishes for the new year. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

No need to recuse from the Malleus Fatuorum case

With only 14 active arbitrators and three recusals already on what looks to be a extremely complex case, more recusals wouldn't help with anything.

Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy says that "Previous routine editor, administrator or arbitrator interactions are not usually grounds for recusal."

It also says that an arbitator is expect to recuse "where he or she has a significant conflict of interest." (emphasis mine). The relationship between yourself and Malleus sounds like "Previous routine editor, administrator or arbitrator interactions" which "are not usually grounds for recusal."

If yourself and Newyorkbrad recuse, then the number of arbs who would actually be working on the case would fall to seven, assuming that both Roger Davies and John Vandenberg don't recuse. I'd be shocked if Davies didn't take the case, but John Vandenberg is on his way out, so he might recuse. This would leave the case with six or so arbs...

Chase me [officially inactive]
Cool Hand Luke [officially inactive]
Xeno [doesn't appear to be active]
Mailer diablo (Kenneth Kua) [doesn't appear to be active]
Coren (Marc-André Pelletier) [recused]
Elen of the Roads [recused]
Kirill Lokshin [recused]
Casliber [may recuse]
Newyorkbrad [may recuse]
Roger Davies [hasn't voted]
John Vandenberg [hasn't voted]
Risker [declined]
David Fuchs [accepted]
Jclemens [accepted]
PhilKnight [accepted]
SirFozzie [accepted]

It seems like too much work for such a small number of arbs! Another thing to think about is to motion to hand the case over to the incoming arbs. As the arbitration committee this is well with in your power to do. --ScWizard (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Article titles discussion status

Hi Casliber, do you have an update on the status of the discussion of the abortion article titles, i.e. when and where? Thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 20:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, see above exchange between me and Steve Zhang (who are the only two folks seemingly interested in the mechanics of the next step). Will chase it up later today (just got up...need more coffee....) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm planning on requesting it come Jan 1 (so the new committee can vote on the matter). I think that since we've been waiting this long that a few more days can't hurt. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 21:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment

I surely phrased that too broadly because it made you think of someone with black eye, which clearly is rather universal. The Harrises actually singled out only someone's "sacred" (i.e. religious) figures/items being displayed on Wikipedia as falling in that less protected class. [2] However, I've now found out that the WMF decided on purpose to make no distinction whatsoever, and to extended the equal "right to be offended" to arbitrary religious values, in the sense that they make no distinction between pictures of poo and images of Muhammad. They are all just controversial content to the WMF. [3] Oh, well, no donation from me anytime soon... ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

5 or 6?

This looks like a typo. How did one acceptance make the count jump from 4 to 6? Art LaPella (talk) 02:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Oops, slip of the finger. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Olympic marmot

Hiya! I'me here to apologise ... looking through the history of the article, I've only just noticed that you were changing "approximatelies" to "arounds" ... unfortunately, in amongst my tweaks and so on this morning, I changed some "arounds" to "approximatelies"! I don't know if this is a UK vs. US or Oz thing, but I don't really have any strong feelings about them - feel free to change them back again :o) I've de-choppified, re-ordered, concatenated etc. in various places to improve fluidity of reading; hope my other changes are OK by you. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It's about plain writing. Use simpler words if no meaning is lost, hence "approximately" and "around" are to all intents and purposes synonymous, and the latter is a whole three syllables shorter! Similarly "prior to" --> "before", "the majority of" --> "most" etc. Have a read of User:Tony1/How to improve your writing if you haven't seen it before. Possibly the most important bit of info I have read in my 4+ years editing here. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I've not only read it, I have a direct link to the removing fluff page from my user page! I don't always remember it all, of course. I never professed to be more than human! I think the "approximately" thing dates from my (several decades ago) schooldays, when we would be absolutely splattered if we wrote "around" rather than "approximately" in any science write-ups. This is quite possibly a UK-thing, but no guarantees. By the way, time and Real Life duties permitting, I'm always happy to assist with copy-edit and cleanup stuff - just drop a line onto my talk page any time you'd like me to tweak something around. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Buchnera americana

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll go look for the DYK talk page also, because this is the second article in 3 days that was simply dreadful in parts. Something's wrong. And since you'd edited the article, and should know a "sessile plant" is not 'distinct', I'd ask you to review the bleats at Talk:Buchnera_americana#numerous_contradictions. 24.28.17.231 (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Ibises for identification

See Bird 1372 regarding "File:American white ibis2.jpg" | American White Ibises. Snowman (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Core Contest

Hi Cas! I've been keeping an eye on WP:The Core Contest, and really like the idea of it. Since it's only a couple of days until 2012, I'm wondering if there has been any talk of specific dates, etc? Also, Ealdgyth left a question on the talk page a while back that I am also interested in the answer to... Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Answered there. I have three judges so far - was musing on whether four was better. Also was waiting on a reply from someone about grants....Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey

I was told that you're a great editor. I was hoping to build a team of editors to help bring the Tiger article up to FA status. You are probably busy with many other projects, but when you have the time let me know. Most work I do is on venomous snakes, but I just think that the tiger article should really be up there. I also work in the medical field, though I'm no psychiatrist (I did want to go to dental school or work on a zoology Ph.D, but the time and money turned me off). I'm a clinical laboratory technologist (also known as a medical laboratory technologist). I have a B.Sc in Medical Laboratory Technology. Bastian (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I was just starting to look at it now and it is looking alot better than I remembered it (which is good). I'll go through. Did I point out this (User:Tony1/How to improve your writing) before? If so, ignore. I'll jot ideas on the talk page too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and no you haven't pointed that out to me. I've give it a look. My main concern now is keeping the black mamba article GA. I asked a GA mentor to help out with the prose. The article is good, the citations are in the right format, the material is neutral, no original research, and well sourced. It's just the prose, which I will have done within the next couple of days. I have Naja nigricollis up now and everything seems okay (according to the reviewer), but I just need a picture. Bastian (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Eucalyptus saligna

The DYK project (nominate) 05:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

A pre-FA peek and comment?

Cas, would you -- or someone who is a good FA reviewer -- be willing to take a "pre-FA" look at Yogo sapphire? I'm not lead editor, and I don't know a lot about gemstones, but am helping some folks there, and we didn't really get the level of helpful feedback at PR that I think was needed, so I'm asking a few trusted and experienced sorts if you'd be willing to do at least an initial peek at the article to see if anything grossly wrong jumps out at you, and comment accordingly? Many thanks! We got through GA without too many hitches, but I know FA is a whole different world. Montanabw^(talk) 06:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. I was interested in gemstones as a kid but not looked much since. Hmmmm........Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I see you've edited it some. I started the article and several have helped get it to where it is, but I'm very fearful of FAC unless someone that Montanabw recommends takes a hard look at it first. So when you say it's ready for FAC we'll list it, if of course you're willing and have the time. We'd all really appreciate it.PumpkinSky talk 12:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

Hi, I'm with the Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2011. You were doing some editing on the Olympic marmot earlier in the week, which is an article that I've been working on. Now, multiple reviewers have told me that it's ready to be reviewed for GA! I nominated it, but TCO suggests to recruit reviewers to facilitate the process, and he directed me to you and a few other users. I would like to ask if you weren't too busy, to do the GA review for the Olympic marmot. I'd really appreciate it! I'm going to ask a few of the other names he gave me about this too, and whoever has the time to get to it first can review it. Thanks! Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment at Fandi Ahmad's ongoing peer review!

Hope you have a wonderful 2012! Thanks for volunteering to peer review football-related articles. I have written an article about Singapore football legend Fandi Ahmad and am aiming for GA status. Would you like to start 2012 by commenting at its ongoing peer review and thus supporting the quest to counter systemic bias on Wikipedia? Thanks! 谢谢！Terima kasih! நன்றி! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2012 WikiCup

Hello, and welcome to the 2012 WikiCup! The competition officially begins at the start of 2012 (UTC) after which time you may begin to claim points. Your submission page, where you must note any content for which you wish to claim points, can be found here, and formatting instructions can be found in hidden comments on the page. A bot will then update the main table, which can be seen on the WikiCup page. The full rules for what will and will not be awarded points can be found at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. There's also a section on that page listing the changes that have been made to the rules this year, so that experienced participants can get up-to-date in a few seconds. One point of which we must remind everyone; you may only claim points for content upon which you have done significant work, and which you have nominated, in 2012. For instance, articles written or good article reviews started in 2011 are not eligible for points.

This round will last until late February, and signups will remain open until the middle of February. If you know of anyone who may like to take part, please let them know about the comeptition; the more the merrier! At the end of this round, the top 64 scorers will progress to the next round, where their scores will reset, and they will be split into pools. Note that, by default, you have been added to our newsletter list; we will be in contact at the end of every month with news. You're welcome to remove yourself from this list if you do not wish to hear from us. Conversely, those interested in following the competition are more than welcome to add themselves to the list. Please direct any questions towards the judges, or on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn (talk) and The ed17 (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comments on Wikipedia:Representation

Hi there! My name is Whenaxis, I noticed that you are on the Arbitration Committee. I created a policy proposal called Wikipedia:Representation. I think that this policy would help the Arbitration Committee as well as the Mediation Committee because the goal of this proposed policy is to decrease the amount of time wasted when an unfamiliar editor files a Arbitration or Mediation Committee when other forms of Dispute Resolution have not yet been sought. For example, an editor may come to the Arbitration Committee requesting formal mediation when other dispute resolution areas have not been utilised such as third opinions or request for comments. A representative works much like a legal aid - there to help you for free and:

• File a formal mediation case or an arbitration case on your behalf
• Make statements and submit evidence at the case page on your behalf
• Guide you through the expansive and sometimes complex policies and procedures of Wikipedia

This proposed idea can also help the editor seeking help because it can alleviate the stress and anxiety from dispute resolution because mediation and arbitration can be intimidating for those who are unfamiliar.

I would highly appreciate your comments on this proposal at: Wikipedia talk:Representation. Cheers and Happy New Year - Whenaxis about talk contribs 22:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK prep offline copy

Hi Casliber, I saw that you added some outdated comments when resetting a DYK preparation area with this edit. Please edit your offline copy so that it does not contain the block of text cited here, these instructions do not really add value anymore. Thanks, Pgallert (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

ok. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Elephant FA

I plan on doing extensive edits to Elephant and making it my next FAN after Giraffe. Given the importance of the animal, will I need collaboration with other editors? Maybe that will be faster than editing and then submitting for CE or peer review. Would you be interested? LittleJerry (talk) 04:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Sigh...I have alot on my plate - folks are working up Tiger though. You and Sebastian80 should look at each others' articles - he was wanting to do Tiger - so he look at giraffe and you tiger. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Ibis picture

Hi Casliber,

Happy 2012 first of all. My picture was taken somewhere on the North Carolina coast, I believe near Cedar Point but it has been a while and I don't think I can retrace my steps on that. Jcwf (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK credit for 1877 U. S. Patent Office fire

Thanks for the DYK credit for 1877 U. S. Patent Office fire.
I believe it was a BOT that gave me credit, however missed the other co-creator User talk:7&6=thirteen.
Could you give him credit also as we worked this article together and he should get credit.
Thanks. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 16:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Mandarax helped out while I was sleeping. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Pop punk

Hi. You placed Pop punk under indefinite full protection back in August 2011 due to an edit war. I'm not familiar with what was going on (I came to the page simply to fix a redirect caused by an unrelated page move), but whatever the issue was I imagine 4+ months of full-protection is more than enough to have curbed it. Would you please unprotect it, or at least scale it back to semi? I don't think I've ever come across an article that's been fully protected for that long, for any reason. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Oops, completely forgot about that one (sorry!). Now duly unprotected Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

FA elections divisive

Why is this different? That's what goes on at ANI and Arbcom perpetually. Seems to me leaving the status quo intact is doing just that.PumpkinSky talk 14:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Have you written a Good or Featured Article? I am happy to help. Why not try the process? duh, facepalm, of course.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

We're considering the Yogo article, and I have a FL, but no FA. It seems very intimdating and I'm leery of it. And you didn't answer the question. It's obvious there are major issues going on in FA land.PumpkinSky talk 19:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Any time one has to really strive for thoroughness there are going to be difficulties. By featuring wikipedia's best work one has to be thorough and exacting. You can't have it any other way. It's extremely hard work to run that without rubbing folks up the wrong way at some point. It takes alot of time to properly review and write and alot of dedication, and what we have now is a result of eight years of moulding and cajoling and developing volunteer time - it's amazing. In any system where one introduces radical change, one risks radical fallout. I don't see that as necessary and am concerned about the effect a big disruption might have. I will help with Yogo and we'll see how you feel once you've been through the griller....Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The offer helps, but other than that, oy vey! If it's not okay to disrupt FA, why is it okay to have arbcom, which I guess you're a member of, lose a large portion of its membership every year?PumpkinSky talk 19:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)...and thanks for helping at Hynds Lodge. I was working Curt Gowdy State Park and noticed Hynds didn't have an article and it's on the National Register of Historic Places. I've work several NRHP articles, so I started Hynds too. I plan to make them a double DYK. PumpkinSky talk 19:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Good point - arbcom has an awful lot of impact on alot of editors, and I think it helps that standards of arbitrators are scrupulously reviewed by elections. Those who apply for repeat terms are then voted on and pass. FAC is alot more transparent. and one can choose not to participate if one so desires. As far as elections, I am not saying they are never feasible, but I don't think it is necessary now and I think there is a lot more to lose than to gain currently. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, we'll just have to disagree on the FA. Apparently from the current posts Raul started FA and has director (notice he is not "coordinator", a significant point to me) ever since. Note comments he made like wanting people to think like him, (paraphrased)..."if I choose to accept Karanac's resignation". Uh, karanacs is not his employee. K can leave whenever. Raul has the mentality of a military commander or similar position of power. This is totally contrary to what I understand the wiki philosophy to be. So IMHO it's time for a change, now.PumpkinSky talk 19:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

sigh - yeah I saw the wording of that post, which wasn't terrific given the climate of the discussion. However, it does not reflect his running of it, which comes across as more benign. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

We'll have to disagree again. I still say 7 years is way too long for someone to be in a position of power on a wiki wihtout ever having stood for election and clearly being resistant to one.PumpkinSky talk 20:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

That's fine, I'll still help you with Yogo Sapphires ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Pumpkin, there's a bit of a misunderstanding there in your interpretation of what Raul said and meant-- knowing Karanacs' situation, I'm sure he was hoping (as many are) that her personal circumstances might turn around, hence he didn't want to move too quickly to replace her. Since Ucucha and I were able to keep up with the workload anyway, there was no urgency. It's hard to say any more than that when people's off-Wiki lives are involved, which is something people in positions of responsibility always have to consider. Raul didn't mean what you interpreted him to mean: he built up a process of complete transparency, so it would be unaffected by the kind of politics we're seeing now, and he values people who share his same views on openness, transparency, and consensus. He did the hard work, built up the process, then set up delegates and doesn't micromanage us: he's there whenever we need him and has never abused of the perceived "power" (which is actually just a whole heck of a lot of hard and grunt work). If you're willing to listen, I'll take the time to explain why FAC is different than Arbcom with respect to elections, but if you've given up on the discussion or your views are entrenched, I've got a lot of other work I can do :) :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I certainly don't want to violate anyone's privacy. It seems to me that Raul feels "I built it, it's mine", ie, a OWN mentality. I'll listen if you have time, I haven't given up on talking, just letting the air out for a time.PumpkinSky talk 20:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that your interpretation of Raul's comments are unnecessarily harsh. I agree that Raul is tight-lipped. More communication would be nice, especially in a leadership role. Even if he explains why he doesn't communicate just to make it clear, that would be appreciated. However, by reading Raul's talk page and conversing with him in the very few times I have, like counting on one hand the amount of times I have exchanged words with him over the years, the characterization of him as dictatorial is inaccurate. I think with more time reading through his talk page archives you would see what kind of editor he is. Judging his entire character by comments made in a 24-hour period, innocuous as they are, is not a good standard to guess someone's motives. Moreover, it discourages true communication about the shortcomings other editors see in the way Raul chooses to perform his job. "I think you should communicate more and define what you do here, listen to our concerns and add accountability to your position" is better taken than "You're a dictator". --Moni3 (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

@ Pumpkin: No, he's just not like that-- that's been one of the pleasures as working for him as a delegate. At first, it was most frustrating, because he never once told me how to do the job, and I initially felt like I needed more guidance, but over time, I realized that 1) he had asked me to be delegate because he saw I "got it" and didn't need to be told how to do the job, and 2) he believes in consensus, openness, and lets delegates find their own way, only weighing in on discussions when it's absolutely needed. It's kind of unfair that he is accused with "dictator"-type comments because he's precisely the opposite (leading others to claim he's not involved enough-- but he really stays out of the way and lets those appointed do their jobs).

On why FAC is different than ArbCom vis-a-vis elections: the job of the FAC delegate is to judge whether there is consensus to promote or archive a FAC, based on commentary entered by reviewers. IF reviewers are intimidated, or hesistant to stridently oppose any FAC that doesn't meet standards, article quality suffers.

Reviewers should not be "politicing", as that directly affects article quality (and that is why I'm concerned that Wehwalt has advanced himself as FA director after carefully avoiding ever reviewing any other editor's work, so he wouldn't risk "alienating" votes-- that is precisely the damaging sort of political positioning we don't want to see take over FAC-- there have been GOBS of articles that Wehwalt was perfectly capable of reviewing, but didn't, lest he have to Oppose, alienate, or risk having others examine his prose more closely). For a FAC reviewer to avoid Opposing FACs just so he can get elected affects the FAC process and affects the integrity of the articles we promote-- there is no other process (for example, ArbCom) where we have the same situation. It's the run-up that matters-- articles are affected while reviewers are politicing-- not the same with ArbCom.

It's related to what you're seeing with your image question: I have to be able to sit back, stay uninvolved, watch consensus form, and then make a call on whether anyone has made a case that you haven't found the best image possible, but I can't let friendships or politics or fear that I'll be "thrown out" in an election affect whether I make the best choice. Article are affected.

That there has been a campaign runup that has been allowed to affect FAC for several months is more than a concern: it's repugnant. While this campaign runup was occurring, reviewers were alienated, FAC business was sidetracked, FA writers were offended, TFAR completely stalled, and articles were affected. Campaigning is not a good thing for FAC, and for it to be preceded by a publicized attack on FAC (with extreme incivility, which Wehwalt never called) by the FA director postulant's mentor is even more concerning. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The titles tell a lot. It's not Coordinator and Assistant or Coordinator for FAC, etc, it's Director and Delegate. The titles set a tone and give an image to people. While you make interesting points, "IF reviewers are intimidated, or hesistant to stridently oppose any" doesn't wash. Why should FA be free of this when RFA, Arbcom and everyone else isn't? Casliber-how intimidating are arbcom elections? How much politicking do you put up with? How hard is it to keep all that from affecting your voting? I haven't even commented on an arbcom case but I'd think it's very intimidating. PumpkinSky talk 20:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• re this I'd expect the same thing happens with cases during arb elections-Casliber do you have input on this? Again, why should FA be exempt from what everone else isn't on wiki? PumpkinSky talk 20:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

If you had experience writing and maintaining FAs, you would understand what's at stake here. Say Wehwalt achieves the possibility of an election. What will stop me, besides my own sense of shame, from recruiting a few folks to make bad edits to his articles? Ten articles at a time. Forcing him to overturn us repeatedly, then forcing him to violate 3RR, getting him blocked for incivility or edit warring, then using that as evidence of his poor character. Meanwhile commenting on the deficiencies of his articles in the election. Casting aspersions on his abilities as a writer and researcher, insinuating that he will not be competent in the position. This is exactly what happens in elections. In no other forum here is content so closely related. --Moni3 (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know the history of the titles, not sure "director" was ever set in stone where or how, but if you simply raise such issues to Raul, he'll explain, discuss, rectify as needed. I'm happy with "delegate", because I value the process over any individual (FAC should not be damaged), and if Raul were ever unhappy with delegating to me, I'd expect and welcome him to replace me. Unlike those who want to "campaign" for what they perceive as "power", I view the integrity of the process as most important. At RFA, they aren't judging consensus as to whether content can go on the mainpage. The politicing in other processes may affect people, but not the content we put on the mainpage. If editors are afraid to Oppose sub-standard material, sub-standard material goes on the mainpage. By avoiding opposes, someone who "fears risking alienation" let's substandard work through, and helps assure his own articles won't be looked at closely for pedestrian prose. Yes, politicing affects arbs (the people), but hopefully not articles (the product). For someone to position themselves in a way that won't best benefit articles, for political reasons, affects the quality of the process that puts content on the mainpage. Others may explain this better than I, but it is fundamental to understanding why FAC works above the politicing that has now been introduced.

Another thing Raul watches for is a respect for consensus and the integrity of articles and the process. Wehwalt was recently involved in an edit war on Richard Nixon (one of his FAs), where he was completely wrong in his interpretation of WIAFA (an image issue, similar to the one you raised), and suddenly his mentor TCO appeared for the first time ever to edit war with Wehwalt on the article (some might call that tag-teaming)-- an alarming demonstration that Wehwalt does not understand WIAFA or hold the status of FAC in high regard. See Moni's post above-- should his mentor be appearing to back him in an edit war, and do we want a campaign process to focus on these sorts of issues, which affect articles? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Then why not all content, not just FA/FAC? You gals make some good points, but I'm not buying "if it's FA related, people or article, it deserves special rules" argument. I'd really like to hear from Cas as he has lots of quality content to his credit and has arbcom experience. PumpkinSky talk 20:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

We can't fix the rest of the Wikipedia :) But GA, for example, fulfills a different role. Now that you've asked, I've long argued other processes should have oversight as FAC does, where it's not "a vote", it's consensus weighed by someone and the buck stops here if crap goes on the mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it should all be the same. Your proposal is interesting but would for sure be a fundamental change. I'll wait for Casliber's input before digesting anything in whole. PumpkinSky talk 20:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Why not all content what? Not all content is subject to FA criteria and the FAC process, unfortunately. PumpkinSky, do you have plans how to keep the things I'm portending from happening? What would FAC look like in your wildest dreams? Do you have plans? Schematics? An essay? It would help to understand your side if your vision is clearly stated. FAC will be more awesome because... --Moni3 (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Pumpkin, I'm sure Cas will weigh in after we stop edit conflicting, but another matter I forgot re the notion that Raul only chooses like-minded delegates ... he named me as his first delegate after a very visible disagreement we had at FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Bleh, it's just gone 8AM here and quite hot and sticky (feels like it's gonna be a stinker - 30C + today), I go out to do some gardening (and I ain't even watered yet!!! so my plants don't get goddamn cooked today...I have gone from predominantly native plant gardening to growing some vegies, which need a tone more water ;P) ...and look waht happens. Gotta read up....Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The weather over here is lovely, and the native wildflowers will be in soon! Have fun there, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay PumpkinSky - here are a few items to consider:

• a scenario where a group of editors who (a) submit articles which have not been adequately prepared, then (b) get very angry when not promoted and blame reviewers and/or delegates, then (c) decide to vote to remove aforesaid delegates at a future election? Very possible.

• how our civility paradigm has played out - two types of editors who respond to conflict in polarised ways - one lot who blow up immediately and settle down, and often don't bear grudges (often end up indefblocked), the other who maintain a superficially civil profile but bear grudges...sometimes for years and years - will oppose editors and proposals by editors who have crossed paths with them before, backchannel or otherwise sabotage debates, or adopt "enemy of my enemy is my friend" meme. The latter group are often not uncovered for years. Do editors backchannel and discuss matters in IRC or by email? Hell yeah! Funnily enough we have a case on civility right now...

• Have I seen this? Yeah, I was bemused by my last public vote at the 2008 arb election, and saw (predicitable) machinations afoot there - thankfully not many. Secret ballot has ameliorated this somewhat, but could open up things worse.

• Think of it, if a popular editor campaigned on making FA easier to pass, would that be a good thing?

Anyway. I do think it is worth discussing, but dang I have alot on my plate today..... Casliber (talk · contribs).21:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds to me like a description of 99% of en wiki, not just FA-ville.PumpkinSky talk 21:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes, it is a description of 99% of en Wiki-- but until now, not the 1% of articles that were FAs. Now, that door is open, by politicking. Politics for the first time ever in the process, some would like to see FAs easier to pass, some never review and never oppose, quid pro quo is a problem elsewhere, if your FAs don't pass, "sour grapes"--> throw out the bunch, bring in a new bunch, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indeed, although I am an optimist in some areas (like people's ability to ignore or dismiss some irrelevancies), I got involved with a few more controversial situations between 2008 and 2010, and the 2010 result wasn't hugely different. Anyway, the writing is what keeps me here, and the politicking is not just wiki, but the whole world really, in your neck of the woods, just listen closely to the fun and games the Republicans will have over the next few months picking a presidential nominee. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

FA's should be the best of wiki, but that does not mean they get special rules of protection. I'm sorry, I've enjoyed this chat, I really have, but to me this simply sounds like the Old Guard defending against waves of change. I respect your opinions but I'm also entitled to mine. PumpkinSky talk 22:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. See you at the sapphires....Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep (by the way, when I have and you have time, and unless Cas gets to it first, I'll tell you how to work on that sapphire image issue-- out of editing time for today). Also, an interesting aspect of the whole discussion is that not one concrete proposal for how to change FAC has yet been put forward. Some suggested more use of The Signpost, which has been reticent in the past and no one knows yet if they will advertise FACs, and the RFC was so taken over by one person's campaign that any possibility of looking at ways to improve FAC were ignored. When you opt for change for the sake of change without knowing what that change is, be careful of what you wish for! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Andy and I made up (see his talk page). he's buying some Yogos and going to have his gf photograph them. But if you to teach me something SG, sure. Casliber, I've decided once we have better photos, I'll file the FAC, but only if you agree to mentor me through it, is that ok?PumpkinSky talk 22:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah that's fine. It just started raining here so the watering the garden not such a priority....Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It's amazing where the interesting discussions end up. The bit that prompted me to post here was Sandy saying: "an interesting aspect of the whole discussion is that not one concrete proposal for how to change FAC has yet been put forward". That's a tad unfair on some of the ideas that have been put forward. There are at least three suggestions I've made (not all there, admittedly, some in other locations) about alternatives to QPQ to encourage more reviews:

• (1) Get nominators to state in their nomination statement the last review they made at FAC (or elsewhere if not at FAC) but don't make it compulsory to have done a review - just get people to face up to how little or how much they contribute on the reviewing side - human nature should then see an increase in reviewing.
• (2) Work with nominators, current reviewers, and WikiProjects to help recruit reviewers. Encourage some of the better GA reviewers to help out at FAC as well.
• (3) After promoting a successful nomination, leave a note on the talk page of the nominators and politely ask them if they would consider doing a review (this avoids asking those with failed nominations to do reviews).

Now, some of those ideas might be unworkable, but I'd hoped people would discuss them instead of dismissing the whole page as an unreadable mess. Geometry guy seems to have had no problem picking out a few good ideas from all the text over there. Three more points:

• (A) Community outreach work - create a department for people to do outreach work in other areas of Wikipedia and at FAC itself, recruiting and training reviewers. I believe there is a GA mentoring system. Could something similar work at FAC for mentoring reviewers?
• (B) Scaling - long-term lack of scaling of the FA system means that you could, in theory, get the WMF to budget and pay for a committee of academics to be part-time FAC delegates and process around 30 nominations per month - the community would still do the editing and reviewing, but the academics would provide another check in the system and a form of external peer review.
• (C) Vision - if you or Raul had been asked 5 years ago where you thought the FA process would be today, what would you have said? What would you say if asked today where you think FAC will be five years from now? Ten years from now?

Hopefully some of the stuff said by those on this page will percolate back to WT:FAC in some form. Carcharoth (talk) 05:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Though that seems less likely now, given this. If the above suggestions get lost in the noise, I'll try and raise them at a better point in the future when things have settled down again. Carcharoth (talk) 05:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there are quite valid points, but to be raised at a better time. The crisis has shifted. It is still profound, but it is somewhat different now.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, now there is some mighty hilarious reading up there !!!! (Cas, you popped on my watchlist because of Laser's post on the copyvio issue, and seeing this in the light of day is ... yea.) Anyway, do you ever archive your talk? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

And meanwhile back at the ranch

Hey Cas, you post "over there"-- would you mind telling Mattisse that I personally think the lack of snow affecting my ski trip is utterly tragic, but leave my dead dog out of this. And my kitchen is quite done, thank you, and gorgeous. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

And meanwhile over at Hynds Lodge

You were obviously following me around when you found this and helped hehe ;-) Thanks. PumpkinSky talk 00:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yogo reshoot

Your attention is requested here: Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Reshoot_of_Yogo_sapphires. PumpkinSky talk 23:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Manorina

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Casuarina cristata

The DYK project (nominate) 16:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Acacia loderi

The DYK project (nominate) 16:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Acacia argyrodendron

The DYK project (nominate) 16:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Alectryon oleifolius

The DYK project (nominate) 16:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

cite help for tammar wallaby

Do you know how I would covert this PH.D Thesis into a cite template? LittleJerry (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I just happened to see this question, and thought I'd throw in an answer (I hope Casliber won't mind). You can use {{cite thesis}} in such cases:

{{cite thesis |author=Robert William Inns |year=1980 |title=Ecology of the Kangaroo Island wallaby, ''Macropus eugenii'' (Desmarest), in Flinders Chase National Park, Kangaroo Island |publisher=[[University of Adelaide]] |degree=[[Doctor of Philosophy|Ph.D.]] |url=http://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/handle/2440/20890}}

produces:

Robert William Inns (1980). Ecology of the Kangaroo Island wallaby, Macropus eugenii (Desmarest), in Flinders Chase National Park, Kangaroo Island (Ph.D. thesis). University of Adelaide.

I hope this helps. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It does, thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

White-necked Rockfowl FAC

Cas, I'm sorry to trouble you with this (as if you don't do enough) but Rufous hasn't edited since December 20, and there's an image issue to be resolved at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/White-necked Rockfowl/archive1. Would you be so kind to wrangle up some bird editors who might be able to address the image issue, raised at the bottom of the FAC? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, I was going through FAC today, and wonder where you are wrt Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Adiantum viridimontanum/archive1? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It's going to be one of those days (sigh) - lots of real life chores and snippets here and there. I'll prioritise sorting out these two. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm starting to respond to Sasata's review and Ucucha, but my semester just started here today, so I'm a little tied up. Most of it should be doable, but the photo request and some of the details connected with explaining pseudopedate leaf architecture will be headaches. Choess (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

@Sandy - I can't find anything on the blank africa map (and in fact several others!), but have found another with a source so will do it tonight when I am home. Also done a bit (and will do a bit more) of wikignoming on the fern one to free up Choess to do the tricky stuff...Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Request

Hi! Happy yappy new year!^^ I have a question: This is mah first mystery-article. Could you go over it and help me correct spelling and grammatic errors? I´d be SO delighted! Cheers;--Nephiliskos (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Wider Reptilia

We bump into each other rather often recently. Always good vibes from you. Hope it's not too bad the other way. Reptile says Additionally, birds are included in Reptilia under phylogenetic definitions. But surely you know this?! --Ettrig (talk) 13:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes I know, I was being childish and facetious :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

But trying to link pageviews and (out-of-wikipedia) meaning to what we write about does have me thinking. For instance, recently I developed a few plants that occur in the western part of my state which is the NSW equivalent of the Brigalow Belt in Queensland. Now the Everglades gets about a thousand hits a day, the Great Barrier Reef 2-4k daily, and the Brigalow Belt gets.....alot less, but educating people about the less "sexy/high profile" threatened ecological communities is vital too. The internet and TV is splattered with information on the former two but the latter is invisible. Anyway, I have been musing. Another article is Noisy Miner, which is a cute but highly aggressive bird which drives off other birds in your garden, so educating urban folk in Australia I think is a very good idea. I have also de-stubbed alot of weed articles too for the same reason. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Several times, the responses shows I am interpreted as wanting to tell people what they should write about. But my main point is that the FA(C) process seems to be driving editors to write articles that are read less. This is what I want to change. It is of course important that people choose what they write about. Everything that makes people enjoy contributing should employed. Most of my own edits are in the Swedish Wikipedia, that has on average 1% of the English readership. (I remember now that I asked you about the Black Swan. That will not happen again. Those readers were drawn by the film rather than the bird though.) --- Hmm... Even if you make Brigalow Belt an FA, it will not be read by many more. But you could tell about it in articles about wider areas and topics. (Are we into POV pushing here ;-). Now off to Bird and ask for some more phylogenetic context. --Ettrig (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Butting in here (tell me to go away if I'm not wanted): I don't think the FAC process is a main reason that people write about topics with less page views - I think the whole set-up of Wikipedia has more to do with it. If you have an article with a lot of page views, you're also going to get a lot more vandals, POV pushers and people-who-think-they-know-everything-when-really-they-don't-know-anything. Take, for example, Horse and Suffolk Punch - both of which I have been a significant editor on. The first is only at GA and has taken hundreds of hours of discussion, work, fixing, cleaning up after other editors, arguing with people who think their pet topic should be in the lead, etc - for years. Suffolk Punch, on the other hand, rarely sees vandalism, POV, or any arguments, and so was fairly easy to take to FA - because of the lack of outside-FAC angst. Which one do you think creates less stress for the editors working on it? Yes, the main equine editors are planning to take Horse to FAC, but we're slow, not because of the FAC process for the most part, but because of the sheer amount of work that it takes to build and maintain an article of that size. If that was all (or even most) of what I did on WP, I would quickly get burnt out. Yes, the requirements for high-quality reliable sourcing at FAC do mean that for a topic that has been written about a lot (be that Russia or bird), an editor is going to have to read a lot more source material than for an article on, say, the Large Black (pig), if they want to take it to FA. However, I don't think that's an unreasonable expectation. I guess I'm asking why exactly you think FAC is the reason for a lot of editors working on low-page-view articles, rather than the general set-up of WP being at "fault". I would think that you would see the same (or approximately the same) distribution of page views at GA that you do here, and even more low-page-view articles at DYK. So why say that it's just FACs "fault"? Dana boomer (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Dana, I was going to write something quite similar to what you beat me to with the above post. I edit to relax and as a volunteer with limited time it is important that I enjoy what I do here. I do think the structure of the FA process favours narrower articles, but I think the process is integral and necessary to the overall improvement of the 'pedia. I have been musing on ways of increasing the quality of broader articles, but my nascent revival of the Core Contest is dependent on one of the wiki-chapters funding some prizes. I'll keep folks posted - Ettrig tehre is an expression in English that one gets better results with an equine animal when using carrots rather than sticks:) - so watch this space. And I do welcome suggestions - I might work on Black Swan one day, and did borrow a book on Swans of the World once to buff swan but lost interest. Enthusiasm is a funny thing.....PS: Have a look at the page views for Amanita phalloides this year given what has happened in Australia. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Could this be a place where we discuss this in a constructive and relatively calm way? I would really appreciate if that is possible. Please note that this is not an exhortion, but a hope. In my view the discussions about this at other places have become heated and chaotic. Before I saw TCO's manifesto I had tried to get Jimmy Butlers students to take on articles of broader interest. Had to give that up soon, after opposition from mainly Malleus. But I really see that line of thought as a high positive potential for Wikipedia. Evidently these discussions stir strong negative feelings. Maybe it's because I'm a moron, but I truly don't understand why, so I cannot even start to meet those deeply felt objections. Anyway, here's a new trial: If somehow good editors could be enticed to shift there efforts to articles with higher readerships, that would be a good thing, because more people would gain the benefits of their endeavours. 2007 FAC was doing that well. I don't know if it was very well or fairly well. What I know almost for sure is that it did this considerably less well in 2010 and 2011. So I want to discuss whether this "observation" is true, what caused it and (most importantly) what whe can do to reverse the trend. To answer your comments: One problem with higher interest subjects is that more has been written so that the article "must" be longer. We could mitigate that problem partly by setting a maximum length for an FA. That is not a stick, is it? We could also raise the notability criteria for FA. In my mind it is reasonable that they are higher for FA than for inclusion in Wikipedia. Disk storage for manually created text is very cheap, but FAC reviewers is a very scarce resource. This would be removal of the carrot, still not a stick. Yes, the work to produce Large Black (pig) is less than the work on producing Horse. There is also a difference in value to the readers. In December 200 000 people had the joy of reading horse, only 1000 benefitted from Large Black (pig). Yet, the (FA) star would be the same. I do understand (now) that the effort differs vastly. There is also a great difference in the value of the result (totalled over all the readers). Yet, the carrot is the same. I think this should be changed. In my view, I am only trying to make the carrots correspond better to the value of the result. Could it be that the fierce opposition to this line of thought is that many editors want to get the carrots regardless of the value of the efforts? --Ettrig (talk) 14:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand your line of reasoning and agree with you that there are many high-page-view (PV) articles that need serious work. However, having the little bronze stars on "my" articles is not the reason that I write them or take them to FAC. Nor is having them on the mainpage a "carrot" - it's actually more of a "stick". The reason I take articles to FAC is that I like to get the feedback from the high-calibre reviewers that congregate there. If I were suddenly told that I could only take high PV articles to FAC, the articles that I work on would most likely remain the same and instead I would just send less articles to FAC. Maybe this is just me. As I said above, high PV articles are stressful. I do stressful in RL all the time - I don't need to spend a huge portion of my WP time doing so. So, I don't think the answer to improving the quality of high PV articles is changing FAC - I think it's bringing together projects and editors to work on one large article at a time, and probably working with the guidelines/policies editors to make working on and protecting high PV articles less stressful. Also, things like the Core Contest that Cas is trying to set up - give monetary prizes, book store gift certificates, journal database subscriptions, etc. for work on high page view articles. Now there's a carrot. However, he's been working on that for over a month and apparently hasn't been able to get anyone on either the foundation or the chapter level interested in shelling out for the prizes (or I'm assuming, given his comments). If you could get, once or twice a year, a contest like this one put together with some decent prizes (I'm not talking thousands or even hundreds of dollars, but not "$10 for first, $5 for second" either), I would put money (heh!) on it that you'd see more people working on high PV articles - I know several editors who are planning on competing in that contest with articles that were otherwise very far down the priority list (including me, see my user page for a list of articles that I am thinking about working on, most of which I probably wouldn't have touched for years, if ever, otherwise).

So, I guess, here's my point: The "carrot" for putting an article through FAC is being able to go "yay, I get to put a little star on the article" (not a very big carrot). And then, you have to shepherd it through the mainpage day (not a carrot, many editors think of it more as a stick). So, the effort put out by getting a low PV article through FAC is equal to this very tiny carrot. The effort/stress/work it takes to put a high PV article through FAC and the mainpage? Totally not worth that little carrot unless you're very much in love with the subject. And that's why the majority of the editors do this - they love the subject. You're not going to be able to get them to work on something they don't want to unless you offer them a much bigger carrot than a little bronze star and the dubious honor of having the article on the main page.

Oh, and one final answer. Above, you say "One problem with higher interest subjects is that more has been written so that the article "must" be longer." No. (Well, I mean, obviously Horse is going to be longer than Large Black pig, but that's not my point). Subjects that have had a lot written about them means that the editor writing about the subject will have a huge amount of information to read, digest, and transform into a well-written, coherent article. They will need to decide how much weight to place on certain topics, which information should go in daughter articles, how to best employ summary style, how not to make the article read like a disparate collection of facts, how to deal with Randy from Boise who wants his pet theory given undue weight, etc, etc, etc. Being able to transform a book chapter, a couple of journal articles and a web page into a coherent article of readable length - not that hard. Being able to transform 100 books and 1000 journal articles into a coherent article of readable length that gives due weight to the proper theories and scholars and correctly uses summary style - that's hard. Many of the long articles on WP just need to use WP:Summary style better and follow WP:SIZE more closely - it's not a matter of changing FAC, it's a matter of enforcing the policies, guidelines and MOS that are already in place. I apologize for this really long post, it's just that there were a lot of pieces that I wanted to respond to. Dana boomer (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Dana points out the problem with the "big" articles; and I think a size restriction won't be of much help, as if you get too tight, then there is a problem that you cannot do a comprehensive overview and the potential of unneeded content forks. (Where is Moon at these days, anyway? I remember it going up for GA, years back...) I know that from the teamwork I've done with the rest of the WPEQ gang that the big articles are the easiest wiki-war targets for GA and FA; as soon as you try to improve something, the edit warriors pop out of nowhere and usually with few helpful suggestions, to boot. WP's greatest strength is probably the same as its greatest weakness -- anyone can edit and the people who have ill will and bad faith can bog down a project with tendentious editing and debate until all the quiet people of goodwill just throw up their hands and go do something else (Kim V just "retired" again over one of these spats over bird articles, BTW), leaving the people like me (the feisty ones who don't know when to quit feeding the trolls and keep swinging in absence of much backup) to fend off the idiots, who seem to attract more of their minions like moths to a lightbulb. Dana nailed the problem. The solution? I don't know; but somehow figuring out how to tell the tendentious people who have nothing to add and only criticize to just go pound sand would be really a great help; I have no clue how to do this, though. Montanabw^(talk) 18:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

@Ettrig, yes we do fork out junior articles eventually, but the parent article is usually pretty big when we do so, mainly because so much content is interthreaded I much prefer a larger cohesive article to capture the content. So schizophrenia has about three daughter articles linked. Dana and MontanaBW offer good thoughts that I was going to add. Think of it conversely thus, the average reader doesn't care about a FA star. Hence I really want to run this contest once I can sort out funding. I need to think left-field with this and I have limited time this morning. It is a fascinating topic and some of the mammoth articles can be lots of fun and very eye opening. My most enjoyable ones were lion, vampire and White Stork I think, but all were hard slogs.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

civility (again)

Given our previous discussions, you may have an interest in commenting here. No idea whether you'll agree with me or not, but you usually sane input may help.--Scott Mac 18:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Second thoughts, this is a hell-swamp. Stay away.--Scott Mac 18:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yogo pics round 2

Pls see Talk:Yogo_sapphire#Round_2_of_reshoot for new ones. These are much better if I can say so myself. Input appreciated. PumpkinSky talk 01:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

If I shoot next time it's not overcast, they should be more sparkley.PumpkinSky talk 01:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Aah, it's easy to forget as it is summer here. Nice sunny day too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Grrr, had a bad snowstorm here yesterday and I had to be in a car through much of it. You suck, dude!  :-P (Grinning, ducking and running) Montanabw^(talk) 18:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Ten WP:FOURs

For having achieved 10 WP:FOURs, you are entitled to display this ribbon.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

So that's a big ten-four then... :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Oplismenus

Thanks for your article Victuallers (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Giraffe FA again

So are you gonna look over the article and maybe make a decision? LittleJerry (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• Casliber, please look at my conversation with the editor on their talk page, and at my edits (most of which were undone by the editor) to Giraffe. I don't want to get into a pissing contest, and I am somewhat reluctant to start a full-scale review of my own to add to the FA review, but I will if you think I should. To be brief, I have reservations. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Howdy

Hey Casliber, don't I recall you being a fan of the Red Hot Chili Peppers? I ask because it'd be nice to clean up that page, but I can't do it all on my lonesome. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

My wife's a big fan, me not so much but I am sometimes in the mood for listening to them. I enjoyed Kiedis' biography. I'll take a look. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

As you're an administrator, I'd like to ask if you'd care to offer some input regarding an edit dispute with User:J.wong.wiki on In Utero (album). He's recently been changing the citation formatting in the references, even though I have pointed him more than once to Wikipedia:CITEVAR#WP:CITEVAR, which strongly discourages such a course of action (we're talking about a Featured Article here, too, where I took great care to internally standardize the refs for the FAC). WesleyDodds (talk) 03:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Major Depressive Disorder (Vincent van Gogh: "At Eternity's Gate")

I refer you to this comment of mine regarding your quite misguided and misinformed support for the use of Vincent van Gogh's "At Eternity's Gate" in this article, a painting whose provenance is discussed further by a colleague in a later thread on the same talk page.

I ask that you either adequately defend your position or (preferably) delete the image reverting it perhaps to Durer's Melancholia, the original illustration. Skirtopodes (talk) 02:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Chrysophyllum imperiale, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canopy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012 USCOTM - The Star-Spangled Banner

Hello, Casliber/Archive 35! The Star-Spangled Banner has been selected as the United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month article for January 2012 and we are looking for editors to help improve the article. You were identified as an editor or WikiProject with an interest in the article and we thought you might be interested in helping out. Thanks!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Another FA

Casliber got a Yank bird to FA. Hoorah! PumpkinSky talk 00:58, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Latest pear and purple Yogo sapphire photos

See Talk:Yogo_sapphire#Latest_pear_and_purple_photos. Hope you think they're better, and just in time for the Great Wiki Blackout of jan 2012! PumpkinSky talk 01:05, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Help needed please

Is it hard to un-delete deleted pages? I have two sandboxes (can't even remember the names now) that I'd like to retrieve because I've realised I let go information that took a lot of time to research and hoped you could retrieve them for me. Truthkeeper88 Vincent van Gogh or something like that Truthkeeper88 Catholic Church. If not, no big deal. Thanks. Oh and btw I'm assuming you're keeping an eye on Ceoil's marathon TFA? I'd watch it but I guess will be gone all day tomorrow. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:41, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Shouldn't be too hard. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:08, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

found the van gogh one .. hang on a sec..... — Ched :  ?  02:17, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

oops .. sorry Cas. I got the Van Gogh one .. I'll let you get the church one. — Ched :  ?  02:28, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Cool. both done then...Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:29, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much to both of you! It was stupid to have those deleted and not until I went through my other sandboxes did I realize how much I'd lost. I won't do that again! Truthkeeper (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Chrysophyllum imperiale

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Cycadeoidea

Thank you for contributing to the Cycadeoidea article! Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 21:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Variegated Fairywren

This is a note to let the main editors of Variegated Fairywren know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on January 21, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 21, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Variegated Fairywren is a fairywren that lives in diverse habitats spread across most of Australia. Four subspecies are recognised. Exhibiting a high degree of sexual dimorphism, the brightly coloured breeding male has chestnut shoulders and blue crown and ear coverts, while non-breeding males, females and juveniles have predominantly grey-brown plumage. Notably, females of the two subspecies rogersi and dulcis have mainly blue-grey plumage. Like other fairywrens, the Variegated Fairywren is a cooperative breeding species, with small groups of birds maintaining and defending small territories year-round. Groups consist of a socially monogamous pair with several helper birds who assist in raising the young. Male wrens pluck yellow petals and display them to females as part of a courtship display. These birds are primarily insectivorous and forage and live in the shelter of scrubby vegetation across 90% of continental Australia, which is a wider range than that of any other fairywren. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Bennettitales

You changed the rating on the talk page from "Stub" to "Start", but left the stub-tag in the article. Did you mean to do that? --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

no, meant to take it out but had a slow connection/limited time/got distracted....Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:You Win or You Die/GA1

If you have time for a more detailed review, I have time to address additional concerns. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Hippo and Rhino

Thanks again for supporting the giraffe article. Anyway, I found a couple problems with the Hippopotamus, Sumatran Rhinoceros and Javan Rhinoceros articles that may threaten their FA status. If there anyway to contact JayHenry for fix them? LittleJerry (talk) 01:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

User:JayHenry has "email user" enabled in the left hand column on his page. He is very friendly and helpful (if he's available). Maybe let's start looking at Sumatran Rhinoceros or Javan Rhinoceros, as these have not been on the main page and it'd be good to clean them up for it. So just choose whichever one you are more interested in and take it one step at a time, with the aim of cleaning it up for a mainpage appearance. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect diff

I don't think you were missing anything: I think AGK slipped a diff in the discussion. [4] was pretty tame. His previous statement to me in the discussion is probably the one AGK meant to point at.—Kww(talk) 02:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

aah, ok. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Your question

Re: [5], see my /Evidence. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

thanks for the pointer. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Cycadeoidea

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Pseudechis papuanus

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Allocasuarina inophloia

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

		Thanks for helping
		Thanks for your help getting W. E. B. Du Bois promoted to FA status. He was a great man, and deserves a great article. --Noleander (talk) 03:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Pseudechis collettii

Best Wishes from me and the wiki. Thanks Victuallers (talk) 16:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Editing

Cas, I'm off to the US for a few weeks, so will not be logging in as often. Cheers Marj (talk) 06:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Mount Cobbler, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conglomerate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello

I am reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/Schoolin' Life and the proposed hook is only able to be seen if you subscribe to the website and download the PDF file, is this acceptable? Aaron • ^{You Da One} 16:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

In general, offline or unavailable sources are allowed - e.g. If I have a book in my library which is not on Google Books etc. You generally use the "AGF tick" when reviewing with the line "offline sources accepted in good faith" if you feel ok with it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

But also note that for many sources that are online somewhere, WP:RX can often provide access to it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

DID talk page problem - vandalism

Casliber - please note this edit - 2012-01-29T14:55:12 (by Juice Leskinen) - to the DID Talk page, in which he comments sarcastically to me while simultaneously vandalizing my communication to you. I have left it as I found it.

Juice has been one of the 3 sociopaths (and, as a Mental Health Professional I use the term deliberately and thoughtfully), along with editors WLU and DreamGuy, who have completely disrupting any possibility of progress on the DID article. We REALLY need help with this situation.

Tom Cloyd (talk) 22:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Casliber. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Notice re: intent to file request for disciplinary action re: 3 disruptive editors

My intent here is simply to give notice to someone who can decide if the information below is relevant or not to the review of the DID article apparently currently underway by at least you and possibly other members of the Arbitration Committee. If what I am doing isn't exactly correct form, I hope you will make allowances for the fact that I'm totally unfamiliar with how to respond efficiently and effectively to the sort of major disruption we've been experiencing at the DID article for the past 2+ weeks. I have a seriously involving work commitment, and in addition a major involvement in the Wikipedia Global Education Program (WGEP/USA). At times, I simply exhaust my stores of energy and of time. I am at such a point right now, so my progress relative to the DID article problem is slower than I would like.

My intention is to file a request with the Arb. Comm. for disciplinary action against DID article editors WLU, DreamGuy, and Juice, because of their gravely disruptive actions on the article and the talk page, because of their harassment and incivility to editor Tylas (and their frightening off of at least one other editor and probably others as well), and because of their concertedly hostile and disruptive actions specifically toward me. I hope to file at least some of this tonight, and to give priority to filing the rest ASAP.

I am a direct threat to their covert/overt POV-distortion agenda because I am an expert relative to psychological trauma and to DID specifically, and I have been from the beginning quite transparent in my commitment to bring the article up to the highest standards of Wikipedia. So far, my efforts have born little fruit, and I am close to abandoning the effort, an act that would have serious implications for my view of Wikipedia as a whole, and I'm very sad to say that. The problem is that if this article cannot be made safe for would-be editors who are brave enough to admit to having DID, and for me as a content expert, I have real trouble justifying my continuing efforts to increase involvement of university professors and their students in the project (our stated goal at WGEP/USA). For me, therefore, there is truly a lot at stake.

It will take a few hours to make my 3 formal requests. The specifics in my requests, I would think, might well shortcut your work and that of others on the committee. That thought alone motivates my posting here. IF (and only if) you agree with this proposition, you might want to give me a little time to complete this work. I will go forward with it in any case, because I think I must. Thanks for your time (a precious commodity, I realize) taken in reading this. Tom Cloyd (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Tom, I can understand your frustration but the arbitration committee is the point of last resort, and generally disputes must have been reviewed elsewhere before they are reviewed there. Places to discuss disputed content include Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine, or one can initiate a Request for Comment. Sorry I don't have better news. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Got it. It is important that we "work the process" in the usual way. That's what it's for. Thanks for the direction. Will follow through as you suggest. Tom Cloyd (talk) 05:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

FAR ping?

Hi Cas - A few weeks ago you commented on a couple of FAR/FARCs, and I'm here hoping that I can get you to return and update your comments. The pertinent reviews are:

• WP:Featured article review/Francis Petre/archive1
• WP:Featured article review/Solar eclipse/archive1

It would be great to see further comments from you on these! Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 14:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

sigh. Will see what I can do. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Request

Cas, when you're back online can you please block me for a few weeks? The enforcement thing doesn't work for me and I don't want to scramble my password. I also really really don't want to be here anymore and need a long break. Thanks so much. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Please ignore. Serious overreaction. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

spotchecking

Do you know of anyone, familiar with the subject, what would be able to spotcheck the sources in the giraffe article. It appears to be the last task before it passes. LittleJerry (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Article titles and capitalisation case

Could you please comment on this discussion on my talkpage. There's a couple of matters that need attention from an Arbitrator, but also help in managing expectations. I'm also leaving notes for the other two drafting Arbitrators. Thanks ! --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 05:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Leon Panetta as a United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month candidate

Greetings, as a member of the United States Wikipedians' collaboration of the Month, this notice was sent to let you know that the article, Leon Panetta, has been nominated to be a future Collaboration of the Month article. All editors interested in voting for or improving these article are encouraged to participate. You can cast your vote here. --Kumioko (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 January newsletter

WikiCup 2012 is off to a flying start. At the time of writing, we have 112 contestants; comparable to last year, but slightly fewer than 2010. Signups will remain open for another week, after which time they will be closed for this year. Our currrent far-away leader is Grapple X (submissions), due mostly to his work on a slew of good articles about The X-Files; there remain many such articles waiting to be reviewed at good article candidates. Second place is currently held by Ruby2010 (submissions), whose points come mostly from good articles about television episodes, although good article reviews, did you knows and an article about a baroness round out the score. In third place is Jivesh boodhun (submissions), who has scored 200 points for his work on a single featured article, as well as points for work on others, mostly in the area of pop music. In all, nine users have 100 or more points. However, at the other end of the scale, there are still dozens of participants who are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly!

The 64 highest scoring participants will advance to round 2 in a month's time. There, they will be split into eight random groups of eight. The score needed to reach the next round is not at all clear; last year, 8 points guaranteed a place. The year before, 20.

A few participants and their work warrant a mention for achieving "firsts" in this competition.

• 12george1 (submissions) was the first to score, with his good article review of Illinois v. McArthur.
• 12george1 (submissions) was also the first to score points for an article, thanks to his work on Hurricane Debby (1982)- now a good article. Tropical storms have featured heavily in the Cup, and good articles currently have a relatively fast turnaround time for reviews.
• Sp33dyphil (submissions) was the first to score points for a did you know, with Russian submarine K-114 Tula. Military history is another subject which has seen a lot of Cup activity.
• Sp33dyphil (submissions) is also the first person to successfully claim bonus points. Terminator 2: Judgment Day is now a good article, and was eligible for bonus points because the subject was covered on more than 20 other Wikipedias at the start of the competition. It is fantastic to see bonus points being claimed so early!
• Speciate (submissions) was the first to score points for an In the News entry, with Paedophryne amauensis. The lead image from the article was also used on the main page for a time, and it's certainly eye-catching!
• Jivesh boodhun (submissions) was the first to score points for a featured article, and is, at the moment, the only competitor to claim for one. The article, "Halo" (Beyoncé Knowles song), was also worth double points because of its wide coverage. While this is an article that Jivesh and others have worked on for some time, it is undeniable that he has put considerable work into it this year, pushing it over the edge.

We are yet to see any featured lists, featured topics or good topics, but this is unsurprising; firstly, the nomination processes with each of these can take some time, and, secondly, it can take a considerable amount of time to work content to this level. In a similar vein, we have seen only one featured article. The requirement that content must have been worked on this year to be eligible means that we did not expect to see these at the start of the competition. No points have been claimed for featured portals or pictures, but these are not content types which are often claimed; the former has never made a big impact on the WikiCup, while the latter has not done so since 2009's competition.

A quick rules clarification before the regular notices: If you are concerned that another user is claiming points inappropriately, please contact a judge to take a look at the article. Competitors policing one another can create a bad atmosphere, and may lead to inconsistencies and mistakes. Rest assured that we, the judges, are making an effort to check submissions, but it is possible that we will miss something. On a loosely related note: If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

You do a great job with DYK work. :D

LauraHale (talk) 08:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Fortheloveofbacon

Need your help on this one. Apparently, User:Fortheloveofbacon is an ArbCom case that the user isn't talking about, somehow involves Risker (if that helps). The user claims that the account User:RelevantUsername (blocked indef by User:MuZemike) is one of his. That is clear sockpuppetry. The Fortheloveofbacon was previously blocked as a sock of User:ChildofMidnight per this SPI. User:Hersfold said that it wasn't CoM but the behaviors (as show on Risker's talk page and mine) are definitely fitting. So, to put this to bed (before I put myself there), who is this guy? RTV person come back? CoM? Someone else? Guy in WitSec? Need to know before I take this to ANI (which I told him to do). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

This conversation is copied from User:SilkTork's page (you two are the only ArbCom members online). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Doodia aspera

Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Eucalyptus botryoides

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Tammar Wallaby

Hi Cas, I opened a GAR at Talk:Tammar Wallaby. I'm just letting you know, as you passed this article for GA status. For 2 of 3 sources that I spot-checked, the article contains close paraphrasing or direct copy/paste from non-free sources. Since this editor works on other animal articles, and I know this is a wiki-interest of yours, I'd appreciate your help in keeping an eye out for further problems. I have attempted to initiate some coaching with him. --Laser brain (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

A Barnstar For You! December 2011 GAN backlog elimination drive

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	With great appreciation, I award you this barnstar for completing Good Article reviews for the December 2011 Good Article Nomination backlog elimination drive Cheers,AstroCog (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

thanks - sorry I couldn't do more. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Coccinella transversalis

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For protecting Callista Gingrich from conflicts of interest, vandalism, and violations of the BLP policy, great job! Bearian (talk) 17:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thx. Even if she is a Republican (chuckle) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Recusal request: Article titles and capitalisation case

While I'm still a party, I request that you recuse yourself as an arbitrator from the case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation.

You appear to have a clear conflict of interest in the case case, because:

1. You have recently offered a strong opinion in a poll on the very the matter of capitalization controversy at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Species capitalization points discussion (which would necessarily directly affect article title capitalization in particular, as WP:AT and the naming conventions sub-guidelines derive their style points, including about capitalization, from the MoS).
2. You are an outspoken member of the WikiProject, WP:BIRDS, that is obviously the most noted group of editors in Wikipedia history for engaging in protracted debates about using capitalization in the encyclopedia for a special class of terms on the basis that the capitalization is preferred by specialist publications in that particular field. This is precisely what is at issue in the "Virgin Birth" capitalization debates raised in the case, for example, and may also be at the heart of other capitalization disputes highlighted in the case.
3. Thus, you have a clear vested interest in the outcome, namely that it favor capitalization in Wikipedia of terms in articles on topics in which a specialist writing for a specialist publication would capitalize, and that it be punitive towards those who have acted against this viewpoint.

While I am confident that you are a good and honest arbitrator and would not actually let your personal feelings about the matter get in the way of making a proper ArbCom decision, the fact is that you've been outspoken on, and directly connected to, the basic capitalization debate behind the entire case. It could severely undermine Wikipedian confidence in ArbCom and its impartiality if the result of this case favored specialist capitalization, punished in any way (on whatever basis) those who have been outspoken against specialist capitalization, or both, and you had remained as one of the arbitrators. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 16:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

"...that it be punitive towards those who have acted against this viewpoint." Wow. Really? REALLY? You think any of us "Title Case Warriors" would be punitive towards those who acted against "our" viewpoint? Wow. Just FYI, I don't think a single one of us — frustrated as we've been by your aggressive wall-of-text responses on the issue — would ever suggest "punitive measures" against those who felt strongly about another way of writing bird names. The fact that you seem to believe so is incredibly sad. And perhaps indicative of the failed state of American politics, where entrenched viewpoints believe (or at least say they believe) the very worst about each other! :P Just a question: would you ask any arbitrator that came down strongly on the same side of the discussion as you do to recuse himself/herself as well? If not, I'd say this request is most unfair. MeegsC | Talk 16:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure. If Darkfrog24 (talk · contribs), to pick a random opponent of specialist capitalization, were an arbitrator, and had agreed to arbitrate this case, I would strongly suggest recusal, for the same reason. It would undermine faith in ArbCom if the decision were to come down in favor of a position that the arbitrator has a public, vested interest in. I did not suggest that the ArbCom or any member of ArbCom would intentionally take punitive action against opponents of specialist caps because they are, but "on whatever basis". "Having a vested interest" does not mean "being desirous of and working toward" an outcome, it simply means that as a factual matter the outcome would favor said person. Please do not ascribe to me accusations that I'm not making. I have plenty of faith that ArbCom is fair, but you know full well from years of controversy about whether ArbCom should even exist, that many do not. I doubt that Casliber's presence on the committee arbitrating this case will make any difference at all in it outcome, only in its perception. PS: I didn't create the wall of text on this issue, KimvdLinde (talk · contribs) did. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 16:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, I haven't implied a damn thing, despite what your edit summary says. You said (in point 3 above) "You have a clear vested interest in the outcome, namely that it favor capitalization ... and that it be punitive towards those who have acted against this viewpoint" (emphasis mine). I didn't ascribe to you anything that you didn't say yourself — you have boldly suggested that Casliber would do just that! MeegsC | Talk 17:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Am I speaking Klingon? I repeat: '"Having a vested interest" does not mean "being desirous of and working toward" an outcome, it simply means that as a factual matter the outcome would favor said person.' This is why, for example, if a judge owns stock in a company, said judge will recuse from a case involving that company, because it will look like favoritism on the part of the judge if the case favors the company. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs.

Well, well, well, so nice to be accused of creating the wall of text on this issue. If you hadn;t raised the issue, the wall of text would not have been there, and we would have been perfectly happy with that. So, while you raise the issue, you can take also responsibility for the effects when the discussion does not go your way. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Fallacious reasoning that amounts to "If you hadn't been walking down the street, I wouldn't have shot you in the head." — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 17:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, yeah, you're right. I have been involved and hadn't registered. Ok, I recuse. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for being reasonable. I am serious that I didn't mean "I expect you to skew the results", only that if the results went a certain way, it might reflect negatively on ArbCom. I don't like being involved in ArbCom stuff, but I respect that its existence and process are necessary. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 21:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Tammar GA

Please check the GA reassessment page again, we need you for another paraphase. LittleJerry (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Coming, coming.....been really busy this past day or so. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Archives of American Gardens

Hello! Your submission of Archives of American Gardens 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! Yoninah (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Ladies Memorial Association

Hey Casliber, how are you? Sorry to bother you but I have a problem: Prioryman wants me to change my reference format. Could you please have a look? Thanks! Drmies (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

ok. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Responded there. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 05:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Casliber,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 02:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Archives of American Gardens

The DYK project (nominate) 09:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Garden Club of America

The DYK project (nominate) 09:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Vincent van Gogh - Sorrowing Old Man

I have commneted on this on the Talk page of Major Depressive Disorder. For your convenience I reproduce it below:

@ CasLiber: Skirtopodes has been blocked by Risker. That makes twice he has been blocked, once by you and once by her.

He posted first on your talk page on 13 January 2011 raising the issue of Sorrowing Old Man, the first time he has posted on Wikipedia on this issue. Your reply is above, saying it had been discussed before and that a commentary had been found linking the image to depression. Skirtopodes asked you to point to that commentary, but you did not reply.

I have looked through the archive and can find no such commentary. The only source I can find is the one quoted above, but that, as Skirtopodes pointed out, is in fact an academic paper to do with sterotypes which in no way seeks to support the thesis that van Gogh suffered from clinical depression.

There is no "commentary". That is a fiction.

I did find this from you Talk:Major_depressive_disorder/Archive_4#Illustrations

"Yeah, good point. The painting is rather a good one (of a sad person, that is), unfortunately Van Gogh had other mental health symptoms suggesting problems other than depression. OK, let's leave it open for a little bit but removing I think I agree with. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)"

So why is it still here, why did you change your mind?

Looking at Talk:Major_depressive_disorder/Archive_4#Illustrations I get the impression (the large downer smiley) that you consider the whole business a bit of a joke. Is that so?

I am trying to understand your motives here. Do you perhaps regard yourself as something of an authority on Vincent van Gogh? On his health? Perhaps you have published a dissertation or an academic paper? Or perhaps you regard yourself as something of an art critic? Do you perhaps post in Wikipedia on the visual arts? Do you have any association with editors who do that might lead to conflicts of interests? Perhaps you have patients who are artists or art critics that might lead to similar conflicts of interests? In short, what is this all about?

I trust you will agree there has been adequate time for you to respond here and that if you do not do now respond adequately, then the assumption must be that you do not intend to.

I am posting this on the IP address that Risker blocked and I will copy to your talk page.

Thank you. 31.6.53.252 (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I juggle alot of things around here and had intended to look into this some more at some point (but other stuff came up), however your battleground type editing, nor casting aspersions on my motivation for editing, makes me disinclined to prioritise looking into this. Nonetheless my curiosity is piqued into the issue and will look into it at some point. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

There was nothing discourteous nor battling about my original post in Talk:Major depressive disorder nor in my subsequent two responses, nor in Skirtopodes' initial comments (but to him, however, you yourself, as you must know or suspect, have been both exceptionally discourteous and cavalier), though naturally if one is patronised in the manner he was by that extremely agressive young man you can expect sparks to fly - the elderly (and distinguished) do not tolerate being treated in that manner; they are not always senile or suffering from MDD, still less whatever nonsense that young man suggested in his tiresome wikilink that we so commonly and tediously see in these sort of exchanges.

The fact is you have made a very poor error of judgement here, several I would say, and it's high time they were corrected directly. Indeed I wonder you have time to do anything at all in your busy life, but this is something I suggest you ought to now prioritise.

Thank you. 31.6.53.246 (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Cactus

If you have time you might like to look at Cactus#Morphology (intended as a temporary title; see the latest of my comments at Talk:Cactus/Archive 2#Revising_the_article). I think this now describes the essential structure independently of the function, ecology or evolution; is this what you had in mind? Then I intend to add more about function and ecology. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

replied there/polishing up rather well...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Request

As a mutual friend of Dr. Haines I wonder if I might ask for your assistance. I seem to have run afoul of certain editors at the various "Newt Gingrich" articles. I have a protective concern about the advent of self-identified Paid Political Operatives and their effect on the Encyclopedia. This doesn't sit well with some. No problem. Can't please everyone. But the level of their acidic replies and verbal taunts into various talk pages has increased to the point that I wonder what I can do to stop them. I don't call the police in RL. I usually handle situations face-to-face. I know I am being vague but I think you know what and who I mean. I can provide diffs, etc. if necessary but I hope you can provide a word from the wise. TY.```Buster Seven Talk 14:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

? - been asleep overnight. I'll have a look to make sure everyone is playing fair....Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The edit in question was taken from User talk:Joedesantisis. I had informed User Joe of a speedy deletion of a project WP:Paid Operatives that, in a round about way, was about him. I did it as a courtesy thinking he may wish to make a reply or have input. Absoltuely no animas was intended. I had "canvassed" my friends and was just beginning to "canvas" the few editors that may have been in support of the Speedy. The following edit was left after mine by User Kenatibo. The 'BS' is me, Buster Seven. This is the type of conduct I am repeatedly required to put up with from this editor. An attack like this is very hard to ignore and needs to be dealt with ASAP. Nothing I say or do will appease him. Please advise my next step or better yet, visit his talk and advise him of the seriousness of the hate he is directing toward me. His smiley face does little to hide his aggression. I am also asking for the advice of Will BeBack and Chet Davis. Maybe one of you can put a stop to it. ```Buster Seven Talk 01:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

All of a sudden Ive become a bother. But, an important project WP:WEaPOn (about Paid Operatives) I have initiated is up for speedy. Can you assist? I want to play by the rules but they seem stacked against an honest effort to record a history of an event as it happens. Urgent. TY. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Arb report

Hi Cas, can you take a look at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-02-13/Arbitration_report (in particular civility enforcement section) and make sure it's accurate. I think I've got the gist but want to check. Cheers. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 10:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

looks ok. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Happy Valentine's Day!

Wilhelmina Will (talk) 10:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Featured articles

On your user page you mention that you would like to collaborate with others in bringing certain articles to FA standard. I would be interested in collaborating with you on an article. I have not been involved with FA before and have only just introduced myself to GA. I am also taking part in the WikiCup which is an incentive to gain further experience. Of the possibilities you list, I would prefer articles in English English (or Australian) and any of these would suit: Acacia mearnsii, Eclectus Parrot, Jackdaw or Lactarius deliciosus. I'm not sure I am temperamentally suited to the sort of nicky-picky minute detail demanded of FAs, preferring to write new content, but I am prepared to give one a try. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh ok, they are all possibilities. I was musing on getting a pet Eclectus last year as my neighbour had one, but it died. Other options might be an article that you might have more familiarity and interest in - is there anything that you've worked on that you'd like to get to GA or FA? Of mine above, I suspect Jackdaw might be the most straightforward as alot's been done. The main job now is looking over the articles I've found on the talk page and chasing fulltexts or abstracts and determining whether they are worth including. Acacia mearnsii might be a good one too - I've not done a literature search yet. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Good. I haven't done anything much on any large articles and nothing I have started is anywhere near FA standard. I'd be happy to go with Jackdaw, - I have a family of semi-tame jackdaws that will land near me hopefully when I cross the farmyard hoping I am going to throw them a handful of poultry pellets. I usually do. I will have a proper look at the article tomorrow. I'll have a good look at Acacia mearnsii too. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, what happens is as articles increase it becomes more an idea of leaving out the super-specialised stuff which is not of general interest. For instance, I've just nominated Xerochrysum bracteatum at GAN, and if you look at the talk page there are a bunch of very technical articles I figured had little interest for the general reader. Anyway, more today. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It was because you had nominated Xerochrysum bracteatum at GAN that I looked at your user page. I thought I might undertake the review but decided that working with you on a FA was a more attractive proposition. For the moment, I propose going through the article Jackdaw, tweaking the prose and adding wikilinks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay then, I'll check the articles on the talk page to see if others are worth adding. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't much care for some of the images on the page. The one captioned "In Poland in winter" has an unexplained pink object apparently dangling in front of the bird. There are better images of jackdaws in flight here. Nor do I care for the litter bin photo which lacks contrast between the bin and the bird. If you don't object, I might make some image changes. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Be my guest :) - I hadn't really given the images alot of thought apart from chasing down some on flickr. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I have changed 2 images and done more prose tweaking etc. I have rewritten the penultimate sentence in the "Social behaviour" section because its original meaning was unclear. I found that the reference gave an error 403 so I have changed the url to one that just gives an abstract of the article concerned. I hope this is OK, - I'm not really used to mucking around with other peoples' articles and changing their references. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Acacia reficiens

Hello! Your submission of Acacia reficiens 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! --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 13:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Re-call

I left a message under the "Request" thread, above. Maybe you didn't see it. Maybe you did. In either case, I need advice on how to proceed. I cannot edit alongside someone that sees me as an assistant at the Crucifiction of Jesus Christ. I've read alot of the back histories of Giano and the like, over time, and I can't remember a slur so vicious and intended to do RL damage. This type of brazen, thoughtless comment can only deepen differences and entrenchments that already exist. ```Buster Seven Talk 22:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Buster7, I saw the comment (I'll admit I've been really busy) - and it was so oblique that I couldn't figure out how to interpret it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Casliber...The test is how I respond. Do I attack, in kind. Tit for tat. Stone for pebble. Blow for blow. Or do I learn about my 'self' and my spiritual growth. The attacks are meaningless and, while momentarily hurtful, they do little harm. I've taken to defending myself in this world of faceless attackers but more than that would be counter to my goals here. I'm human. I make mistakes. but I learn each day to work toward peace. Say Hi to Dr. Haines for me if you see him. He was my mentor and will always hold a special place in my wiki-heart. In RL too. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Request

Hi Casliber,

Can you have a look at Nasturtiums (E.Phillips Fox) please and let me know if you can see any problem with putting it up for DYK? Thanks, Whiteghost.ink 02:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Whiteghost.ink 00:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Acacia reficiens

Orlady (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with Adiantum viridimontanum

Cas, thanks for your support of this article as an FA. I appreciate your time spent in carefully reading the article and your useful prose suggestions. Who would have thought there was so much to say and polish about an obscure little fern? Yours, Choess (talk) 03:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone who has messed around with alot of obscure angiosperms, and buffing a few more....Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I take up your gage, sir. Looking over X. bracteatum. Choess (talk) 02:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Great! Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

PS: Be as tough as possible as it'll be (surprise surprise) going to FAC at some point....Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'd already suspected that was the case. Over to you now. Incidentally, you may be interested in User:Choess/Orchid, which I whipped up to deal with the situation on User talk:Raabbustamante today. Someday (ha!) I might try to turn this into a more full-fledged how-to for writing decent botany articles. Choess (talk) 02:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

American Kestral

I have some fantastic photos I took of a wild Adolescent Kestral that I hand fed for two days a couple of years ago. It would be a test of my "DIY" ability if I could put them into the American Kestral article. As I state in the talk, the current picture does little to show the true brilliance of this beautiful bird. How/where do I start? ```Buster Seven Talk 04:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Trick is with images is to have each add something unique to the article. Have you uploaded the image to commons yet? Once there we can compare and prioritise the best images to use. The article can also be expanded a bit, maybe a run for FA... Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I have not. Are there directions somewhere that I can learn how? ```Buster Seven Talk 05:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty easy, just go here, log in with your global account and upload away....Casliber (talk · contribs)

Thanks> looks pretty staightforward but still a challenge. Will do next week w/ more time. Maybe a whole new door opens!! ```Buster Seven Talk 05:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

WMUK microgrant

Hi Casliber. Sorry for the delay in getting back to you about wmuk:Microgrants/Core_Contest_(prizes). I've just replied to you there - basically, if you're still interested in this, then we can provide the prizes as requested. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Replied there (grins) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Whoo! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Yay! I've been looking forward to this. Can't wait to see more details! Dana boomer (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

OK - will set it up for Saturday 10 March to 31 March - nice 3 week period ending....April 1. Now to write something for signpost etc.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

You said above 10 March to 31 March but you put "It will take place from midnight March 19 to midnight March 31 Sydney time" on the actual contest page... which is it? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

shitshitshitshit - 10th it is ...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Dang. I'll be in the field then, with little to no internet access.  :( MeegsC | Talk 21:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll gladly trade places with you. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Jackdaw

Having been all the way through the Jackdaw article tweaking the prose, I have some doubts as to whether it is FA material. Compared to the Noisy Miner article, currently being reviewed, it is disjointed and has some problems it seems to me. For example, there are 4 subspecies with different plumage and then we get a single description that does not even say which subspecies is being described. Then the ranges of the subspecies are described in the "Subspecies" section but are disregarded in the "Distribution and habitat" section. The "Cultural depictions and folklore" section is very bitty. There are certain "citation needed" tags and I wouldn't know where to find suitable references and some facts are not cited at all. Altogether, I think GA would be a better goal than FA. What do you think? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree - some articles come together alot more easily than others, funny how that happens. I haven't finished looking through the documents on the talk page yet to figure out what else to add. I was saving up all the complex behavioural ones to read in one go. Folklore/pop culture bits can be tricky to get into a cohesive para. I was intending to go for GA first - if w'ere lucky, we'll get a thorough reviewer who'll throw up lots of improvement ideas to prepare for FAC, though hopefully not quite so long as talk:White Stork/GA1....Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Precious

	integrity
	Thank you for your help, kindness and understanding, PumpkinSky

This message is brought to you (with thanks for another Bach cantata DYK credit) by Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Cool, nice gem :)) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Tell the photographer :) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I'm glad to see I'm not the only one worried about that turn of events. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Policies which are clearly sensible, yet everything isn't as cut and dried...Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem in that area seems to be that the only way to discourage people is to talk to them a lot. Because no other measures can be taken, it's an open question when enough talking about COI becomes WP:HARASSMENT. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Because of the essentially non-actionable nature of WP:COI, my firsthand impression of COI/N is that it mostly inflames situations rather than help solve them. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. We-ell at least it ended up (eventually) in big hugs all round. If only all debates could reach that conclusion.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hutton FAC

You seem to have quite a lot on at the moment, but if you fancy looking at another cricket article, Len Hutton is at FAC and I would appreciate any comments or suggestions you may have. If not, no problem! --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Bit busy at present, but maybe in a few hours' time....Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments so far; I think I've done them. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Extinction

This may be a dumb question but do we add extinction marks for all animals that are extinct? For example the Cape Lion doesn't have extinction marks, which I have notice on several other articles, while Thylacine does. If there is no reason, I'm willing to add extinction marks on the other articles.Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 05:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Personally I would say it was more useful on recently extinct lifeforms (especially in cladograms or lists with living organisms), such as Great Auk rather than, say, trilobite, do prioritising the former is good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright I will do it in morning and sorry for my inexperience in this subject; I came from the Republic of China discussion which I need a vacation from.Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 07:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Giraffe spotcheck

I've been wanting forever for someone to spotcheck the giraffe article. Would you be able to do it soon? I've also have some problems re-paraphasing the last two cites for [12]. LittleJerry (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Had a really busy time recently. Will see what I can do. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Are we gonna look at all the sources? Because I don't have access to all of them (other people have contributed). LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello? LittleJerry (talk) 15:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Damn! Sorry LittleJerry, your post got lost. Will see if I have time today. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Xerochrysum bracteatum

The article Xerochrysum bracteatum you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Xerochrysum bracteatum for comments about the article. Well done! There is a backlog of articles waiting for review, why not help out and review a nominated article yourself? Choess (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Beautiful! Thank you for "golden everlasting"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Heh, got a bunch of them and planted them, so was curious....Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Cas clone!

Organic dust toxic syndrome, mushroom workers and bird breeders! New editor for you to "mentor" through MEDRS :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I can get fulltext there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it funny when one comes across a new article for which there are boatloads of secondary reviews, yet the thing is only mentioned once anywhere on Wikipedia? Thanks, Cas ... I'll unwatch there, and let you mentor the newbie. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 February newsletter

Round 1 is already over! The 64 highest scorers have progressed to round 2. Our highest scorer was Grapple X (submissions), again thanks mostly to a swathe of good articles on The X-Files. In second place was Tigerboy1966 (submissions), thanks an impressive list of did you knows about racehorses. Both scored over 400 points. Following behind with over 300 points were Ruby2010 (submissions), Cwmhiraeth (submissions), Miyagawa (submissions) and Casliber (submissions). February also saw the competition's first featured list: List of colleges and universities in North Dakota, from Ruby2010 (submissions). At the other end of the scale, 11 points was enough to secure a place in this round, and some contestants with 10 points made it into the round on a tiebreaker. This is higher than the 8 points that were needed last year, but lower than the 20 points required the year before. The number of points required to progress to round 3 will be significantly higher.

The remaining contestants have been split into 8 pools of 8, named A through H. Round two will finish in two months time on 28 April, when the two highest scorers in each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers, will progress to round 3. The pools were entirely random, so while some pools may end up being more competitive than others, this is by chance rather than design.

The judges would like to point out two quick rules reminders. First, any content promoted during the interim period (that is, on or after 27 February) is eligible for points in round 2. Second, any content worked on significantly this year is eligible for points if promoted in this round. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which would otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Request for participation

Dear Casliber: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.

The request can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, Mr. Stradivarius, at their talk page. MedcabBot (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening COTM

The current WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening Collaborations are: Hobby farm Raised bed gardening Sustainable gardening Urban horticulture Vermicompost The next collaborations will be posted on April 1, 2012. (Contribute here)

Revolt DYK

Why did I only get one DYK credit for a triple nom yesterday ?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. I see the discussion. No one contacted me. I could have added text.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Rollback Permission Request

Hello, I am requesting the rollback feature because I am dedicated to fighting Wikipedia vandalism. I am already using 'Twinkle' but would also like to use other great tools such as 'Huggle'. I understand the responsibility that comes with such a tool, and will always use good faith when editing. Please consider granting me the rollback feature so that it will help me fight vandalism, a little easier. :) WheresTristan (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Banksia cuneata

This is a note to let the main editors of Banksia cuneata know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on March 6, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 6, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Banksia cuneata is an endangered species of flowering plant in the Proteaceae family. Endemic to southwest Western Australia, it belongs to the subgenus Isostylis, which contains three closely related species with flower clusters that are dome-shaped heads rather than characteristic Banksia flower spikes. A shrub or small tree up to 5 m (16 ft) high, it has prickly foliage and pink and cream flowers. The common name Matchstick Banksia arises from the blooms in late bud, the individual buds of which resemble matchsticks. The species is pollinated by honeyeaters. Although B. cuneata was first collected before 1880, it was not until 1981 that Australian botanist Alex George formally described and named the species. There are two genetically distinct population groups, but no recognised varieties. This Banksia is classified as endangered, surviving in fragments of remnant bushland in a region which has been 93% cleared for agriculture. As Banksia cuneata is killed by fire and regenerates from seed, it is highly sensitive to bushfire frequency; fires recurring within four years could wipe out populations of plants not yet mature enough to set seed. Banksia cuneata is rarely cultivated, and its prickly foliage limits its utility in the cut flower industry. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Nasturtiums (E. Phillips Fox)

Orlady (talk) 08:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Beautiful and profound, this pair of natural and artistic flora, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, nice, ain't it? Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Very good history, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Potato Head image

Hello, Casliber. You have new messages at Talk:Mr. Potato Head.
Message added -- Trevj (talk) 14:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jaws FAC

Still waiting for the "another look" you promised to do at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jaws (film)/archive2 - but only do it if you have the time to do so, of course. igordebraga ≠ 03:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me - I'll take a look. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue One - Recent news from the Teahouse

Hi! Welcome to the first edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!

Spring has sprung! Stop by the Teahouse for a cup of tea under the cherry blossoms.

• Metrics are out from week one. Week one showed that the need for Teahouse hosts to invite new editors to the Teahouse is urgent for this pilot period. It also showed that emailing new users invitations is a powerful tool, with new editors responding more to emails than to talk page templates. We also learned that the customized database reports created for the Teahouse have the highest return rate of participation by invitees. Check out the metrics here and see how you can help with inviting in our Invitation Guide.
• A refreshed "Your hosts" page encourages experienced Wikipedians to learn about the Teahouse and participate. With community input, the Teahouse has updated the Your hosts page which details the host roles within the Teahouse pilot and the importance that hosts play in providing a friendly, special experience not always found on other welcome/help spaces on Wikipedia. It also explains how Teahouse hosts are important regarding metrics reporting during this pilot. Are you an experienced editor who wants to help out? Take a look at the new page today and start learning about the hosts tasks and how you can participate!
• Introduce yourself and meet new guests at the Teahouse. Take the time to welcome and get to know the latest guests at the Teahouse. New & experienced editors to Wikipedia can add a brief infobox about themselves and get to know one another with direct links to userpages. Drop off some wikilove to these editors today, they'll surely be happy to feel the wikilove!

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. Sarah (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Organic dust toxic syndrome

Orlady (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)