User talk:Casliber/Archive 13

Billy
Any reason not to include Peter Pan...Space Monkey Mafia...No go(FFA)...British politician sex...Palestine Terror on the Airline...homeless Vets? Yomangani talk 15:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * .....D'oh! (slaps hand on forehead) ..was lazy, it was 2 AM and felt like just gettin' it out there. I'll fix if you haven't. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm intrigued... what on earth could be the link between that eclectic bunch of topics? --Dweller (talk) 10:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I hadn't heard about it, though I vaguely recall the song. What a pity Joel is culturally challenged and didn't think to include any cricketers in his magnum opus. Not much connected with Norwich City in there either :-( --Dweller (talk) 10:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * With apologies to Cas, I've corrected that oversight (though it would be a push to get Norwich City in under either of those definitions, even if you push the Dodgers out. Arf.) Yomangani talk 10:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * ROFL XD (makes up for the dramas of bollyline on the telly anyway...) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Splendid! (As Blowers would say) I've made a small tweak - hope you don't mind. Well, now I know what to do next after I'm done with Keith Miller. --Dweller (talk) 11:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Go for thy life. as some ol' biblical geezer'd say. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Casliber/Flaming Joel-wiki
Oh dear...where are all the Powderfinger references? I'm sure you could stick one in there, just for me ;) Cheers, &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide 21:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate the award. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 02:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

???
Can you make sense of this article? 120120 Kankelborg - is it an attack page or am I misunderstanding something? Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No, its ok. check the link. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh lol - I thought someone was saying he was fat... :) Spawn Man (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: retrospective award
Hi Casliber you just placed a retrospective award on my talk page that I think was meant for User:Rlevse. --Happyme22 (talk) 01:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, well in that case thank you very much! The article's been sort-of a pain lately with a lot of new material being requested. You can take a look if you want. But thanks again! Happyme22 (talk) 04:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! István (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Stuff
Thanks for working on that bird. I did a bunch of them in June and quickly lost track of which was which (then the bot came along and sort of killed the fun of starting them).

So Gray Wolf is our largest animal mammal, eh. The cats are well represented. I suppose we still need to go back and finish Panthera.

Did we figure out who had the most FAs in '07? I suppose it was Awadewit. Marskell (talk) 06:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep. NFI on FAs - All my 13 FAs date from 2007 though I just realised. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, no. Hurricanhink went positively crazy last year. I count 18. Marskell (talk) 09:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello old pal
I don't suppose you'd consider a copyedit of Birmingham campaign would you? It's at FAC and I can't see past the copyedit issues for determining FA quality. The nominator is so unfailingly polite and obliging and has done so much good work that I'd really like to see the supports come flooding in before Gimmebot archives the FAC as a fail. Much obliged. --Dweller (talk) 15:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Awright then me ol' squire. I'll see what I can do...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * How gracious. --Dweller (talk) 10:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll owe me after this biggie. Really should have been sent back to PR IMHO, but I'll be generous and slog through it. Eventually. --Dweller (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Adminship
Hi Cas, thanks for the note. It is something I've thought about from time to time, but because I'd hardly ever use the buttons it doesn't seem worth it to run through that gauntlet. Besides I've still got a few rhinos to work on... not to mention figuring out a way to earn a Flaming Joel. --JayHenry (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

SSBM FAC comments
Hello. Thanks for your comments; they were really helpful. I'm just letting you know that I have responded to your comments now on the FAC, although I couldn't find some of the requested information. Thanks. Ashnard Talk  Contribs  15:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Apology
Casliber, I have to apologize for my massive revert yesterday. Unrelated to this article's FAC, I hadn't slept for two days. (I sound like a politician...) I have to add this to my list of states in which one should not edit. Cranky and tired. I left a note for you on the FAC discussion for Birmingham campaign saying I incorporated many of the changes you made to a copy edit this morning, as well as altering the 2nd paragraph you suggested. I appreciate your time in working with the article, and the FA process. --Moni3 (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Link
Hi Cas. Sheep wanted me to share a link with you. It is not at all squicky. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Mick Liber is your long-lost brother! Firsfron of Ronchester  00:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ??? - no, my dad...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah! Firsfron of Ronchester  02:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

About lion
Hi Casliber, its me again. Please take a look at the talk page for lion and from there, we can have more discussion. Footballfan190 (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Do we have an agreement here? You are saying I should make the page say that a lion weighs 530 lbs with the Smithsonian source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Footballfan190 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, just add the word 'generally' so doesn't conflict with the one documented biggie. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Casliber/Flaming Joel-wiki
Would you mind if I used Image:Flaming-wiki.jpg for some purpose not related to Billy Joel? Gimmetrow 22:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, it's such a pretty image. Maybe run it by Debivort who desgined it but fine by me. What is it by the way? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * An award for surviving wikihell, more or less. Gimmetrow 00:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * ROFL - XD - how appropriate..cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead is done!
Word up dude, Vamp's being reviewed! Man I love rhyming! ;) Yes, I finished the lead (See my coments on the vampire talk page) and I've put it up for FAC. I want to thank you sincerly for getting it there. You're my wing man. :) Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * See, I knew you'd be angry at me! I can sense you're annoyed at me! *Sigh* Spawn Man (talk) 04:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Woah, people arguing over Batman episodes! ;) Were you like one of the accused edit warrers or just someone who happened to get caught up in it? Anyway, sorry for overreacting - I get so worried that everyone's angry at me sometimes. :) Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 05:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Er no. Sorry, but the arbcom's title just reminds me of Star Wars (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#The Television Episodes Edit Wars → Star Wars Episode 4: Revenge of the Wikipedians...) ;) Anyway, hopefully the vampire FAC will go by without a hitch... :) Spawn Man (talk) 06:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've fixed a bit of the problems presented at Vamp's FAC, but there's problems with some of the stuff you wrote/shifted, so I've left comments there. I think we also failed to mention in the whole article that vampires are immortal? Do any of your books have any info on this as I don't want to just write in there "Commonly, vampires are depicted as immortal", if there's info saying that originally they weren't considered so... The comment about the Lillitu is big as well - when you shifted the repetitive text from the description section to ancient beliefs, you must've accidentally removed some text making the sentence seem weird. I'll try and find the original diff. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 01:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm...immortality. Good point. I have some stuff (from Jones) to add when I get home. Hadn't realised...obvious really. Can lok at otherscheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I know, of all the things to forget lol. That'll have to go down in my book of things to remember "...98 - Thought IMHO was an insult. 99 - Forgot to mention immortality in the vampire article. 100 - ..." ;) So you want to do pork now eh? I don't know how much help I'll be, but I'm sure I can dig some stuff up. However, the question is, do you want to do pork first or one of the reward board articles first and pork afterwards? We might as well get paid, but I'm just suggesting this because one of the editors is sweeping up all the furry GA's like wild fire and if we wait for as long as we did on Vampire, we might not get a chance at such easy cash. Up to you (We could always do both at the same time...?). Well no opposes yet at the FAC anyway. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration
I have filed a request for arbitration which involves you. Please see Requests_for_arbitration. John254 02:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Flickr again
Heya Cas. After a ping from Clayoquot today, I went back and looked at Giant Otter and realized I was actually really close with it before dropping it back in November. Should be at FAC before month's end.

Could you work your Flickr magic again? As I think I mentioned, it's censored where I am, which makes me pic deprived. (It contains some pornography, I guess?) Yes, I can get around the block but I try to avoid that. Marskell (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll see what I can do. I think my hard drive is about to die so I may be a little, erm, preoccupied...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA Thanks
Hi Casliber - thanks for your participation in my request for adminship. I've taken your comments to heart, and have no intention of letting my admin status interfere with the central task of, as you put it, "'pedia building" (although shouldn't we, as subjects of Her Majesty, say "'paedia building"?). Anyway, the RfA passed 52/0/0, and I'm now in possession of a shiny new mop. If I can ever help you with anything, please don't hesitate to contact me. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Rudget!
Dear Casliber, my sincere thanks for your participation in my second request for adminship, which ended with 113 supports, 11 opposes, and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank my admin coach and nominator, Rlevse and Ryan Postlethwaite who in addition to Ioeth all inspired me to run for a second candidacy. I would also like to make a special mention to Phoenix-wiki, Dihyrdogen Monoxide and OhanaUnited who all offered to do co-nominations, but I unfortunately had to decline. I had all these funny ideas that it would fail again, and I was prepared for the worst, but at least it showed that the community really does have something other places don't. Who would have though Gmail would have been so effective? 32 emails in one week! (Even if it does classify some as junk :P) I'm glad that I've been appointed after a nail biting and some might call, decision changing RFA, but if you ever need anything, just get in touch. The very best of luck for 2008 and beyond, Rudget . 17:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion
Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here. --User: (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Problems:
We've had 2 opposes at the Vampire FAC; one concerning how much useful information there is in the "Ancient beliefs" sections and if the folk beliefs etc section are just about things which are similar to vampires, but aren't. The other's concerning size, so they're both similar (IE, remove text of redundant entity mentions = removed text). I've bitten the bullet and removed the Sekhmet Ancient Egypt section and I've got a few other things I want to remove/subarticle, but wanted your approval first. Okay, my plan of attack is:

(agree - place 1 sentence on Sekhmet in parent bit - Ancient Beliefs - so there can be a link and we can work reffed Sekhmet material into that article) (agree - place 1 sentence on Kali, and maybe other 2, in parent bit - Ancient Beliefs - so there can be a link and we can work reffed Sekhmet material into those daughter articles)
 * 1) Remove Sekhmet section.
 * 2) Remove Ancient Indian section.


 * I'd also do the same with Ancient Greece section as per above.


 * I'd subarticle the regional variations of folk beliefs first before the rest after this. They can be excised neatly and a very nice Vampire in Folklore subarticle results which wouldn't be too far off FA itself!


 * 3) Cut out all useless entities from the World Beliefs sections, only leaving notable and worthy mentions.
 * 4) If that still isn't good enough, subarticle natural propagations section - You'll have to make a 3 or 4 paragraph summary of everything since you wrote all the sections.
 * 5) If that still isn't good enough, subarticle some of the folk beliefs sections (I don't want to come to this since I think all folklore should be on one page).
 * 6) If that still isn't good enough, give up and commit hara kari...

Get back to me as soon as you can before we get a whole lot of extra opposers voting against due to those reasons. This will need our full attention. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What have you DONE Cas???!!! The oppose at the FAC was against the usage of non-vampire entities in the world beliefs section - you've removed all the actual vampire material when you could've removed useless stuff first!!!! FFS, I wish you'd discussed it with me FIRST before unilaterally altering the article majorly. Now we're left with a section on the 18th century vampire controversy and no real vampire information. What about world beliefs?? You should've subbed that first! Anyway, I've also subbed the natural propagations section (Hopefully you'll be able to get in there and write a paragraph or two on the vampire article to summarise) and I'd prefer if the slavic and roma etc beliefs were re-added to the article. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 04:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Now that I've calmed down a tad, here's what we need to do, but I'm open for DISCUSSION: You need to write a summary of the Theoretical origins of vampires‎ on the vampire article since the whole section has been subbed. After that's done, that lower part of the article is complete. However, the Vampire folklore article is misleading - I thought vampie folklore comprised of everything? If so why hasn't any world beliefs material been subbed there? I'd much rather have the information pertaining to actual vampires (Such as the stuff you shipped off to vampire folklore) than the "sorta-vampires" in world beliefs? I propose that the Vampire folklore article be readded to the main vampire article and that we rename it to something else which will allow us to move the world beliefs section to it, since that material is not actual vampire material, where as the stuff you moved off is. Doesn't it make sense to do that rather than have pertaining material off-article?? After that's done, then we just do summary stuff on the main article, clean up the sub articles and then we're done. Please actually talk your thoughts through with me first; we've got a week and it was kinda annoying you doing all that without even mentioning it to me first... Spawn Man (talk) 05:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oop, sorry about that - but seriously - the article is an overview of vampire (i.e. the whole shebang). If you take a step back and look you'll note there is a huge amount of detail on local folklore variants. I never considered the article to focus on folklore vampires as they are not even what 90% of folks think of when they do think of vamps anyway. As it is they still occupy a fair chunk of article (sections 2, 2.1 and 2.3). I will summarise the theoreticla origins. But seiously vampire folklore is an easy GA and possible FA. Don't worry, we had to do this with schizophenia forking out to treatment of schizophrenia and causes of schizophrenai. I can see a Featured Topic here :) cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not happy anyway. Firstly, it looks like you've just added the natural propagations section back (I did a test, and you've only chopped 4K off) - considering that you moved all of the slavic etc sections without summarising them, it makes me think of your true intentions (IE, you consider your natural props section more highly than others and want to simply keep it there and not sacrific anything). More needs to be editted off. Secondly, the title Vampire folklore is misleading with the way you've set it up right now. Currently, it should be changed to European vampire folklore, since you've shifted none of the world beliefs section. Thirdly, why has none of the less important world beleifs section been split off and instead you sent off the more important eastern european folklore sections - the vampire was born in eastern europe, yet you replace it with its african counterparts which aren't even true vampires?! Fourthly, the summary for the subbed medieval sections is not adequate, since its only subject is the 18th cent controversy, hardly a summary of all slavic, romanian etc beliefs. I don't agree with most of what you've done and I can't handle it right now. If you do anything, try and fix the problems I've pointed out - I can't deal with this right now. Spawn Man (talk) 05:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. I bags vampire as featured topic. Muahaha..
 * Can't deal with this right now meaning I really actually can't deal with it right now (RL stuff to do). Plus I'm getting stressed - can't be stressed and work on here. I'm leaving you in charge while I take a sanity break til tomorrow. Okay, it looks as though we're inside the limit by a bit, so for now, since you wrote it, try and fix the natural causes section (IE, write a summary on the main vampire page, and that way we can bring some of the stuff from vampire folklore back later on possibly). I really need you to do that. We can look at the rest when I get back. So no need to work on vampire folklore or anything European for now - just the sciency stuff from Theoretical and the natural causes section of vampire. That's all! Please, I really don't wanna come back and see everything upside down again - it was a big shock and it got me really stressed. Sorry for whining so much (Plus it's damn hot over here - 34 degrees in the office at my house!) Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 07:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, I read your message and was astounded I had 3 of your problems exactly too! Man, someone must hate us lol. ;) Okay, I'm back - family/crisis issues are over so I'll be able to help, but I'll be trying to keep my stress levels down. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've looked around the article and here's what we need to do.

Firstly, I've removed the theoretical origins section on the Vampire article, to make way for your summary of everything.

Secondly, I've renamed Vampire folklore as Vampire folklore by region so that it now covers it actual content and we can move any Non-European text to that page.

Thirdly, we need to decide which text from Ancient beliefs, European beliefs and Non-European beliefs will be staying and which will be going. Summaries will need to be made for the text that is shifted.

Fourthly, just tie up the loose ends.

That should leave us with something like:


 * Opening.
 * Etymology.
 * Folk beliefs.
 * Description and common attributes.
 * Creating vampires.
 * Identifying vampires.
 * Protection.
 * Ancient beliefs.
 * Medieval and later European folklore.
 * Non-European beliefs.
 * Modern beliefs.
 * Theoretical origins.
 * In modern fiction.
 * Literature.
 * Film and television.
 * Footnotes.
 * References.
 * External links.

Let's move towards that, so that means that text from Ancient beliefs will have to be shifted to Vampire folklore by region and summarised here, text from Medieval and later European folklore will have to be shifted to Vampire folklore by region and summarised here, text from Non-European beliefs will have to be shifted to Vampire folklore by region and summarised here, and text from Theoretical origins will have to be shifted to Theoretical origins of vampires‎ and summarised here. Are we all in agreement? Please please say yes, so we can begin what will only be a long long slog... Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * So you're saying you can't chop any of it down to just 3 or 4 paras? Keep in mind I want to stick to that heading format above, so there can't be any subheadings, meaning that everything needs to be summarised. I'm sorry, but if everything else has to be cut down, I'm sure fringe theories and the like can be too. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Nah, screw it - I can't cope with the pressure right now. You be in charge - obviously you're not listening to my ideas and it's too much to ask of me right now. I'm off. Sorry, but I can't cope right now. Spawn Man (talk) 03:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

My RfA
My request for adminship was successful at 64/1/2! Many thanks for your participation and I will endeavor to meet your expectations. Cheers,  Sephiroth BCR ( Converse ) 09:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

FA Award
So, are we going to have the FA Awards? Basketball110  03:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Gosh, I'd forgotten about that. All things considered I ended up agreeing it was impractical. There was some discussion over who had the mostest somewheres...Marskell said it was HurricaneHink.....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Fruit
Thanks! I believe it's no longer Mango season, but my encyclopedia tells me that today is the Papaya festival! So have a fruity day!  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  23:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Eeeww....papayas don't do much for me, but these are really nice and more available each year in boutique grocery shops...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

o_0
Nice one.  bibliomaniac 1  5  00:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Semi-back:
Hi Cas - I couldn't stay away (Obviously) and have done some quiet editing on the Vampire folklore by region‎ article, merging all the old stuff from the ancient beliefs sections to that article and rearranging it a bit. The vampire article's theoretical section is finished, so no need to worry about that now (Although I'd have liked to see it summarised a bit more so we could add back more european stuff). Now we need to cut and paste the non-european section into the Vampire folklore by region‎ article and summarise it on the main vampire article. Then I'd like to bring back some of the slavic, romanian, roma etc etc stuff to the main vampire article, but make it a general summary (Just having the 18th century contro there is not representative of the entire medieval/european outlook). I'd suggest removing most of the 18th cent story, since it's fully covered at Vampire folklore by region‎, and summarise it and add a summary of europe too. Will you help me - I'm still not 100% and I'd prefer not to let my stress levels get too high (Doctor's orders - pretty annoying considering I'm only 20 odd). I'll do whatever I can - I've looked at world beliefs, and I may need help summarising that section - for now I'll just copy it all to Vampire folklore by region‎, and we can work from there. Good to see a few supports on the FAC, but I wish no one had complained about the size - it was perfect before and now it just feels like a shell. I'm slightly disheartened... Spawn Man (talk) 06:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Heck, I now think this article is a much better candidate for featured article - I might even nominate it after vampire's FAC is over. I've moved the text from world beliefs in the vampire article, and now it just needs to be summarised - any suggestions? Spawn Man (talk) 07:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, I've nominated it for GA. :) Anyway, I really do need your help with the summarising - I'm kinda lost at the deep end. I'm not usually like this at FAC, but I guess the whole having to remove half the article really threw me. I will be forever in your debt, since I've been such a pain in the arse... Spawn Man (talk) 07:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * GA is a great place to start - Let's see what comes up. I'll have a look. Agree, should be within striking distance of FAC too. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Review of Sertraline
Thank you for the nice review of Sertraline. I will work on the issues you raised. Paul gene (talk) 11:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks + Music
Hey Cas. I forgot to thank you for Giant Otter photo. The article's coming along.

Do you mind throwing up a comment regarding Featured article review/Music of the United States. It's one of these two month numbers I just can't get closed. (Sorry to always ask for this same thing.) Marskell (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Rufous-crowned Sparrow Help
Casliber,

I've recently been working on expanding my namesake's article. While it still is not complete, could you pick up your trusty dictionary and explain the roots of some of the scientific names, both the species and subspecies, to me? Also, though the article currently lacks a picture, there are some good ones on Flickr. However, I know nothing about Flickr and copyrights. Could you help me figure out which if any pictures of the bird on Flickr would be suitable for Wikipedia? Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 'K, I'll have a look. I just logged on and had a mental list of things to do...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There isn't a real rush for the info, particularly when you've got vampire to worry about. Give me a holler if I can do something for you. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Just got back from a bit of a break, so thanks for the translations. Again, give me a ring if I can help with anything, and congrats on getting vampire passed. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 02:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Phew! Vampire is Featured!
It may be featured, but I would still like to make the changes that I mentioned on the talk page. Plus we still need to move some of the non-european text to vampire folklore by region or that will have difficulties in its upcoming FAC... I won't feel good without that done. I feel totally demoralised and depressed that the article had to be horribly mutilated like that. And now, I don't know if I can make those changes because I've lost the will to work on here, so it's a vicious cycle. I probably won't edit for a while. I don't think you get how totally horrible that whole FAC was and what we had to do to the article, even if we got practically all supports... I'll see you around. Sincerly, Spawn Man (talk) 12:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Last lookover for Sirius content-wise
G'day RJH, I rearranged Sirius a bit - trying to put ancient observational uses of the star in the first section, and leaving the religious ones till the bottom. The only other 2 things I can think of are whether the whole Red Sirius rebuttal needs more detail, and ditto for any search of Sirius C. I also made a modern cultural bit at the bottom but will remove anything I can't find cites for. If you're happy from an astronomical point of view I'll make a start on copyediting and ask for a couple of oter folks to give it a lookover. I was planning to run it through GA but noted it has already been there. (d'oh!) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's unfortunate, but, compared to a star like Vega, there doesn't seem to be a lot of additional things to say about Sirius from an astronomical perspective. So I think this will have to do. Anyway, apart from awkwardness of the merged paragraphs at the start of the System section, it looks good to me.&mdash;RJH (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh there is perhaps one more thing. The following paper:
 * makes the suggestion (just prior to section 2) that the redness was caused by interaction with a faint companion star. You might want to mention that as another possibility, even though no third companion has yet been observed.&mdash;RJH (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The first few paragraphs seem confused to me; Sirius can't both be a white MS star and a white dwarf, AND two young blue stars. The former is correct, the latter wrong. More minor points; in observation history, that must be an absence from the 'night skies'... When talking about the proper motion work by Halley, 30 arc minutes is substantially less than the diameter of the Moon. You say twice that Sirius C has not been confirmed. Otherwise, good work. Chrislintott (talk) 10:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Chris - tricky to define it succicntly. Someone had put the first sentence of lead para 3 into present tense. I get your point and will see what I can do. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I just came back to check on my earlier comment and I noticed the statement about the angular diameter of the Moon. Unfortunately I have to disagree. The Moon varies from 29&prime; 21&Prime; to 33&prime; 30&Prime;, or about 30 minutes: half a degree. Sometimes the Moon may appear larger when it is near the horizon, but that is an optical illusion.&mdash;RJH (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You're quite right, sorry for the slip. Chrislintott (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You're quite right, sorry for the slip. Chrislintott (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Somerset FAC
Unfortunately there has been a problem with FAC (possibly due to transcluded pages/templates & overall page size). As a result several nominations, including Somerset, have had to be restarted and I have been informed that all previous commentary (both supporting and opposing), including yours is void. As a result would you be kind enough to review the page and place any comments at Featured article candidates/Somerset. Thanks&mdash; Rod talk 19:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Flaming Joel-wiki
Thanks for the award, t'was a nice thought. I read that page a few weeks back and laughted a lot - but dude, you could have picked a better tune! Best. Ceoil (talk) 01:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Issue:
An issue has been raised at Origins of vampire beliefs; I thought you might want to take a gander since it's your area (Check the edit summaries). I'm still not back - is it okay if we leave our next collaboration for a few days for me to get over the whole sorry story? Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 06:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Your deletions are falling behind
User:Casliber:

After a review of your contributions and your deletions, we find the ratio unacceptable. You are hereby cautioned that you need to rectify this ASAP or risk being Trouted. Of course, we are not advising you to summarily delete anything — you need to use appropriate procedures — and we offer no specific items for you to delete; that discretion is still granted to individual editors.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

for The Work Assignments Committee


 * ROFL XD (much funnier than crawling around my dusty garage in 35C and 80% humidity at Xmas-time with a stomach like a bowling ball full of Xmas Turkey and ham looking for old magazines to fix unreffed tags on RPG articles anyway..) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Jack (tree)
I cleaned-up the cites w/cite web, then looked at the templates that comprise the box. At Template:Taxobox/doc I found what would appear to be a new mechanism for coloring box backgrounds; i.e. the "color=lightgreen" would go and the color would be per the "domain" — which isn't specified. So it seems there are issues that, pun intended, require domain-specific knowledge. Fixing this on thousands of articles is a job for a bot; one that will spit a report of articles it could not do. Anyway, this is not my field. And so I offer this all back to you. If you can clue me in about what I'm missing, I'll take another stab at it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Upon a little further investigation (I read the template code), I see that it is keying-off "familia = Anacardiaceae" and have removed the "color=lightgreen" and the box still comes up "lightgreen". This a better mechanism for a number of reasons: "lightgreen" is not a valid name for css colors and the old-way is thus reliant on browsers supporting an extended color lookup table (which will not all have the same rgb values), and this also allows centralized adjustment of the colors of things. If I was behind the box code, I would be figuring on ignoring embedded colors soon, and only supporting the new scheme. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Lion picture
Hey Cas, do you think the lion article could use a picture like this somewhere? Sheep81 (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice photo - the lion article is fairly full of photos without it being overcrowded. I've given it a brief look and it will be tricky.....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!


Dear  ,

Thank you for your constructive criticism and input  in making Alpha Kappa Alpha  <font color="#4CBB17">a <font color="#E75480">featured article .

<font color="#4CBB17">Best,  <font color="#960018">m <font color="#E75480">ir <font color="#F6ADC6">a <font color="#E75480">nd <font color="#960018">a  <font color="#4CBB17">08:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Tel Aviv
Hi. I have carried out extensive work on the article based upon your feedback. If you could take a look at this and see if it meets your expectations, I would really appreciate it. Many thanks--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Tiger
On your "to-do (anyone for a collaboration)" list, you have Tiger. Is that still up for work? Basketball<font color="#FFA500">one <font color="#FFA500">ten  01:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm actually not going to a library, but I have a book on the cat family, if that helps. Basketball<font color="#FFA500">one <font color="#FFA500">ten  15:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Celery
Thanks for cleaning up Celery. FWIW, I was just using AWB to find pages with Trivia sections - I apologize if it gave the impression that I was telling AWB to automatically delete those sections. Triona (talk) 01:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * T's ok, just digging around for refs. I was starting to clean up a few manually by going to the template and just trying to figure out what shoul go where. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Off my head, Time Crash (the actual episode) directly references it, and this page (I use Sullivan's site a lot for citing DW pages) explains why it was worn. Will (talk) 12:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * thanks.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

RFA
<div style="background-color: white; border: #5B92E5 solid 2px; margin-bottom:.5em; padding: 5px; font-family: trebuchet ms, sans-serif;"><font color="#084C9E">, Thank you for your support in my RFA which passed 43/0/1. I would like to especially thank Bibliomaniac15 for being my nominator and admin coach. I would also like to thank Rudget for being my co-nominator. I'm sure that I can live up to the community's expectations as an administrator, and not totally mess everything up. Thanks again for your support! Malinaccier (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa
I wish to thank you for being supportive of my effort to regain my adminship. Though it was not successful, your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 17:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Superb/White-winged Fairy-wren
Yes, I see, you are probably right, I didn't watched for the head, how dumb... But don't you think this one has a formidably blue tail for a superb? --Xavierschmit (talk) 21:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've got an other question where you might be able to help me: How can I change the name of the picture (White-winged Fairy-wren (Malurus leucopterus) XS 001.jpg)?--Xavierschmit (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Heroes peer review
I noticed that your user name was on the Peer review/volunteers list. I was wondering if you could take some time out of your schedule to head over to the Heroes (TV series) talkpage and give us an honest peer review. The page has gone through some major changes in the last few months, and it would be fantastic if a prominent editor/contributor like yourself, could head over and give us at the Heroes Wikiproject some sound opinion and ideas on improvements for the page. We have all worked very hard at improving the page, and we need great outside, reliable and trustworthy users to come over and help us improve. I you are interested in joining the peer review discussion with other prominent users/contributors, much like yourself, please follow the link. Thank you very much for your help and your continued effort to improve Wikipedia and its quality! Peer review/Heroes (TV series)/archive2--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

A request. *evil laugh*
Hey Cas. I just spoke to AnonDiss Josh, who just got back from the Sydney meetup. I've heard some potentially libelous statements about what your favourite phrase appears to be...something along the lines of "duck me lead" (hmm...my rhyming isn't too good). Anyways, to prevent me from posting these highly libelous statements onwiki (screw BLP!), I request that you perform the highly complex and dangerous task of helping me copyedit Odyssey Number Five. You have been warned.

Cheers mate, Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 09:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hehe, 'tis a good phrase - I noticed how novel it was; everyone will be on to it now Cas! Btw, what'd I miss after I left? Cheers, Josh. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 09:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * He was a perfect gentleman when I met him - "duck oath mate!" Hesperian 10:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Not too much, we went to the pub and then went for Japanese - much mirth was had all. Ok....I'll have a look at this then...............cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Globular, Pac-Man, naming
Will "ball-shaped" do? As anyone in the know will tell you, it's Ms. Pac-man not Pac-Man that rules the arcade screen. I think she's a Ms. because, being so much better than him, she decided on divorce.

As for naming, I don't totally agree. The binomial is a matter of taxonomy, and if you want me to shift your note on Ancient Greek back down, I can go do that. But it's common name and names in other languages is not strictly a matter of alpha taxonomy, don't you think?

Thanks for your run through last night. Marskell (talk) 12:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Aaah, sod it, they weren't deal-breakers. Had a few beers earlier tonight and now I'm getting a headache.....(see above) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

FAC review
Cas, I think you have a support and an oppose at Featured article candidates/Birmingham campaign; I could step back through the diffs to see where you are, but I've been doing that on messy FACs all day :-) Can you strike/unbold the outdated one? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, done. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)