User talk:Casliber/Archive 23

This is an archive so please don't modify it. Post on my current talk page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Request help with review
Hi Casliber. I know this isn't exactly your area of expertise, but I was wondering if you could have a look at Melbourne Airport. The page has been up for A-class review for a month or two, and has not received any comments. Any opinions, however minor, would really be appreciated. Hope to see you there! &raquo; \ / (⁂ | ※) 16:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Addition of DSM-IV Code to Medical Template
Hi Casliber,

It would be really great if we could add the DSM-IV Code to the Infobox Disease Template. It would be extremely useful in the psychiatric disorder articles.

Thanks.

Kind Regards, --blurpeace (talk - contributions) 05:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Good idea, I have asked here to see what folks think. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Huia
Hi Casliber. Argh this is incredibly frustrating for me, I did so much work on this article - especially the "place in maori culture" section and I'd love to be able to do more but these days I'm so busy that I honestly just don't have the time to contribute a lot - hence why i'm replying a few days late, having not logged in for a while. I will have a glance at some of the points you made tonight but otherwise will have to put it to one side for a bit. I'm taking some leave from the 24th to the 3rd of February and I can hopefully then FINALLY find the time to rip into this article and make some improvements.. no promises but if everything goes according to plan I will be able to do it. i have some questions though...

1.You are a prolific contributor and very active member of the wikipedia community, yet I assume you're pretty busy person too, what with the research that you do ( or so I gather from your profile page). i only found I could really comfortably contribute to wikipedia during months long university holidays - but i no longer have the luxury of having those - Any tips on how to fit in wikipedia editing time?

2. The edits I like to make most are the ones which I did on "Huia" - adding lots of new, well referenced material to expand an article substantially. However, I'm not quite sure how to go about the research bit.. It seems like a lot of editors have got some kind of system going..Here is how I did it back in '07; I simply went to the uni library and wellington central library and and got out all the books about the Huia I could find - in additon to magazine articles and books about it which i own. Next I read through all the information i had gathered and underlined the relavant stuff with pencil - then I categorised it according to what the info. was about - the categories I had were ( to give you an idea)

1. Description. 2. distribution and habitat 3. Behaviour - etc

I numbered the paragraphs according to what type of info. they covered. Then I went through and collated all the info. for each number/category of information and composed my writing straight onto wikipedia.

I didn't really know how to go about doing the research and may have sort of been "reinventing the wheel" a bit (so to speak). how do seasoned editors like yourself do it? and do you track down more hard to reach info. from scientific journal articles by ordering them in somehow? and finally, is there somewhere on wikipedia with hints as to how to do original research to write an article?

Your response would be greatly appreciated and very helpful Hope the summer weather is treating you guys well across the ditch, Cheers, Kotare (talk) 05:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the question
Here is the link:
 * Wikipedia_talk:Television_episodes Ikip (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Candy cap DYK
Thanks for the nomination! I listed some alternate hooks over at Template_talk:Did_you_know. If you have suggestions for further work on this article or on the DYK, I'm game. Peter G Werner (talk) 04:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It's kind of short but...
... how do you rate Golden White-eye's chances of getting past FAC? I'm in two minds about submitting it. The GA review was very thorough, but the species is not well studied giving a paucity of references. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  20:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Lead will need two paras - is over double length of shortest FA - Banksia telmatiaea had similar issues and is worth looking at. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Dwellers of the Forbidden City
Hi! :) I have nominated the article Dwellers of the Forbidden City for Good Article status, as I feel it has undergone significant improvement from the point at which it was almost deleted. Since you were involved with improving the article, and/or sparing it from deletion, I'm inviting you to help out in any way you can to improve the article so that it may join its fellow modules, Ravenloft and Dragons of Despair as a Wikipedia Good Article. :) You may want to place the review page (which may not begin immediately) on your watchlist to keep track of the review process. BOZ (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh heh :) BOZ (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool find! Are you sure that bullywugs debuted in DotFC rather than the Fiend Folio? BOZ (talk) 03:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thats what DMG ed 4 said - I have I1 buried in my garage and will check and get back in a few hours - it was a fantastic module, I recall making a shitload of encounters for it too...have to check Enworld too to see whether some enterprising young chap has converted it to 4th ed ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I just checked my copy of the Fiend Folio, and it does credit Luke and Gary Gygax for having come up with the bullywug, so it's entirely possible that Gary said to Zeb, "hey, I've got this frog man that's going to be in the new manual, and you can use it for your module first if you like!" ;) I really need to get a look at the new DMG - is that in the introduction? Are there a lot of little gems like that? BOZ (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Dammit, didn't get a chance last night. Never mind, soon. Actually, there isn't much navel gazing of past stuff, which makes the I1 comment pretty notable I think. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll agree; I didn't even expect that much, to be honest! BOZ (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, I had a chance to flip through the DMG, and as far as I can tell that's the only one. BOZ (talk) 02:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The article is now up for good article review, so if there is anything at all you can contribute to get the article the rest of the way there, let us know. :) BOZ (talk) 04:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Success! :) BOZ (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Acacia_mearnsii
Your next FA task, since you like plants, is this article.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 22:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Retrieval of Deleted Text
Hi Casliber, Is there a way of recovering the text of an article after it has been deleted from Wikipedia? The reason I ask is that Padres Hana has asked me this question about an article he had deleted: Eva Ducas. I had a feeling that this was something an administrator could do? Regards     23:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * yes, easy to do and looks like has been done now. Ask again if recurs with something else. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, cheers     03:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Deinosuchus
Hello, Cas;

Would you be interested in taking a look at Deinosuchus? I've been participating in a peer review for the article, which the author intends to put forth for an FA nom. I think it is of high quality, but I haven't been on FAC for over a year so I don't really know what it's like now, so it would be good to get someone who's worked with the process more recently to check it over. Thanks! J. Spencer (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look - would be great to get some non-dino paleo articles up to FA. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Pope John Paul II
Hello again Casliber, I'm a bit confused. There already appears to be a Peer Review currently taking place on Pope John Paul II? (Please see: Peer review/Pope John Paul II/archive2). I was unaware of this happening, but will try to go with it. Also, between myself and Can-Dutch, I thought we had already reduced the articles size considerably. I now understand what you were getting at previously about article length.(!) Any more ideas?     04:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Casliber, I've been continuing my ‘pruning’ of this article, in line with the numerous, ‘far too long article’ comments. I think the page has shrunk significantly over the last couple of weeks. (Is there a way of checking this accurately for comparison?) I've tried to shorten each section, without loosing too much of the meaning. I have removed most of ‘stubby’ sections. I have moved a lot of the text to the corresponding daughter articles; created two new pages: Bibliography of Pope John Paul II and Apologies by Pope John Paul II, so most of the lengthy sections at the end of the article are now gone!. Following comments of possible ‘overdose of photographs’, I removed 5-6 which we could do without. (I've tried shortening the 'Death and Funeral' section, but as it was a large event, it's difficult to know what to leave out, without loosing too much continuity) Anyway, do you think the article is now of an ‘appropriate’ length now?
 * I really don't want to overdo this process, in case we end up with an article like this. Cheers.     02:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Heading in the right direction - prose size is still 55kb. I will have a more detailed look later. I share your pain, believe me I have been through this before and am trying to help you avoid idsaster later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers Casliber, I understand. (Having an ‘idsaster’ sounds very unpleasant) :-)      03:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Casliber, Could you answer me a question; is Template:Catholicism a ‘navigational template’, as described in WP:R2D?     04:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a navigational template. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Casliber. I asked because I was getting a bit confused in a discussion on Help Desk. --     04:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Casliber, as I seem to have established that it is OK to edit Template:Catholicism, would you mind unlocking it for a few minutes while I make the neccessary repairs? --     02:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, All done, Thank you Casliber. --     03:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Shhh, Vandals must be asleep... --     04:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Another question, if I may? On the Pope John Paul II page, do you think it would be OK to significantly shorten the ‘Criticism’ section, transferring text to a new daughter article: Criticisms of Pope John Paul II, as we have done already to the other sections? I've already posted my question on the talk page. --     04:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Casliber, still working on trimming the article. Please have a look in, if you have time, to see progress.     02:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Icos
I noticed on the peer review volunteers page that you're interested in biology and medicine articles. I've been working on Icos (was a biotech company), and I just put it up for peer review. Can you take a look at it and make/suggest improvements? I would like to be able to take the article to FA after the peer review. Thanks, Shubinator (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Friendly ping. Shubinator (talk) 04:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Being buried. Thx for ping. Will look soon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for cleaning up the article. I'd be very grateful if you could answer some of the questions I've posted at the top of the peer review. Shubinator (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:Mushrooms...
Sure, I'd love to give the article a look, see if I can see anything that needs improving. I'm quite complimented that I'm on your contact list, as it were. I'll take a read now. J Milburn (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Made a few minor fixes myself, mostly based on MoS stuff, but I've left a load of notes on the the talk page. Hope you or someone else can look into it. I've watchlisted the page, so I'll probably be popping up there quite frequently. J Milburn (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Terrific, thanks. I'll take a look posthaste :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"more fun to come..."
C; If you'd known I'd be back, would you have re-considered your ArbCom run? ^_^ I extend the same warm commis-, err, congratulations to you on your appointment that I did to Risker. I have high hopes (tempered of course by painful experience) and look forward you your first executive orders. brenneman 04:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh, it was partly your intention to run that spurred me into running, plus some nagging from folks whose opinions I value...and look what happened. But for some side-splitting fun, have a look at Zoophilia...."it is not explicitly condoned anywhere" (???????) has to win my award for creative interpretation :)


 * PS: You really in Melbourne? Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I won't start a new section
Mostly since there's a global shortage on equal signs. Thanks for the constructive edits to Tori Amos. If I'm being a pig-head (hey, there's a first time for everything, right?) please don't be afraid to let me know. Oh, and yes I am in Melbourne, although my presence there has never been explicitly condoned by either state of federal authorities. - brenneman  00:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

ABC
Maybe you should chip in, having appeared on ABC TV.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 04:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hah, did I miss something? I just scanned the story, are you talking vandal reversion or a meeting...Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Need reinforcements. I think the mods are deliberately ignoring my post pointing out errors in their very story....about 2000 admins and that "nobody" can edit protected articles.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 04:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Aha, sorry, wasn't thinking about the bloggy bit at the bottom. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Mod finally approved it!  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 04:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Ghost films
Hello, if you need help accessing these print sources about ghost films, let me know! :) — Erik (talk • contrib) 04:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks - just digesting the online links first up :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Amanita muscaria ‎
Hi Cas, I had a little go at it, I didn't strike out any of the comments at the informal peer review but I did attempt to fix up the toxicology related ones. It seems a shame the worlds most famous mushroom isn't a GA yet :), good luck with it, let me know if anything I wrote doesn't make sense or needs referencing, cheers M r Bungle |  talk  08:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks - my energy needs a boost. Will go over stuff in a mo'. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I got it all on A. muscaria :). Also, I realise you are a busy man, but if you have a second, seeing as you are a medical doctor (and a psychiatrist, and I assume you probably prescribe SSRIs, MAOIs etc) I was wondering if you could have a look at serotonin syndrome before I flick it to GA. Any comments appreciated. Cheers. M r Bungle |  talk  02:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Tree Sparrow
Hi Cas, I'm working on Passer montanus now, one of the many species Oz and NZ have so gratefully received from Europe to enhance the fauna. I'm a bit unclear on its current status down under - can you help? Thanks, jimfbleak (talk) 08:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * AFAIR they are pretty uncommon - but more in Melbourne than in Sydney. I will dig up some sources. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:OR
This is Original Research - Synthesis. It is taking claims about the genus (the Asian fossils, not the American, and there are only American for the Deinonychus) and then reworking it to make a claim that none of the articles do. Wikipedia is not for new arguments based on various facts. Since you involved yourself in the discussion, could you please remove this clear violation? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I need to see what the Nature article said. All we need is one dinosaur adult book or article proposing it was liekly to haev had feathers. Fact is, T. rex is farther afield from many feathered dinos and some of its ancestors were feathered and there has been plenty of speculation on that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Likely isn't really that good of a thing. If we had a section devoted to speculation to fill in the missing gaps, fine. However, paleontology has a long history of people speculating improperly. See brontosaurus for an example. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You responded at the Greece Runestones that you had no problem with using Swedish only sources. I have produced two books (in English) that goes into detail about what is unique about various parts of the stone and this information is not included. I have produced a journal devoted to the one region's stones and it is in English (with at least one article talking about one of the stones). I have produced information from the museum in Oxford's exhibit on the one stone and the history behind it. I think with even that little bit of information found from a cursory search that you should reevaluate if this is still a special case that Swedish only sources are acceptable. The user in question is refusing to add any of the new information because it will make his page too large. Its not longer "there aren't any" claims. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

GHosts

 * By the way, I listed all of the famous literary ghosts that I could think of on my talk page. I could provide you sources to discuss them based on whatever angle you feel like approaching the subject. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks much appreciated. I will no doubt nag you more later about it :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You may be interested
I came across a new documentary film you might want to catch: Know Your Mushrooms Cheers,LeadSongDog (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * heh, I'll take a look. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thx for the timely intervention.LeadSongDog (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You may be interested
Hi Cas; sorry I haven't got back to you yet—work is just overwhelming at the moment. I take a little time off for WP once a day. Right now, it's this proposal, which I raised during the ArbCom elections. You may wish to observe or comment.


 * here, and
 * here, originally.

Tony  (talk)  13:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh crud, I hate seeing this at after 1am. I need to sleep and will mull over it tomorrow. This is a hot topic at present so will look closely. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input, Cas. Hoary has proposed a new version, possibly better, along the same lines (I won't bother you with it—just to say that it's well under development).
 * Another issue came up at the Admin policy talk-page: Wikipedia_talk:Administrators. Please see my post currently at the bottom, in which I realised that admins' adherence to their policy is best framed in terms of initial and repeated behaviour, and behaviour adaptation. This is currently lacking in black-and-white, sack 'em first up calls by non-admins who are upset; the "gradualist" methodology has also been underdeveloped because some admins feel uncomfortable with the kind of codified regimen that would be required. I think it's matter of simple psychology: knowing that one has to toe the line in future or the measures against you will become more serious (gentler prodding at the start) is the very line used by many admins in upping the block-periods issued to users. It has merit when the written framework for the application of such a methodology is intelligent and sufficiently fine-grained. At the moment, there's no gradation for admins. Tony   (talk)  10:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi
I think I am leaving. Cheers PHG (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:What next then?
Well, Amanita muscaria is definitely ready for FAC after those changes have been made- probably, there will be some further reccomendations from FAC regulars, but it really is a brilliant article. I enjoy writing the minor species articles because there are enough sources to spend an hour or two knocking up a decent article (great for DYK, or, in a couple of cases, GA) and I'm only writing the milk cap articles becuase the first one I wrote happened to be a Lactarius species- thought I may as well stick with that for now! In terms of bigger projects, at first I thought maybe working on one of your creations- list of Lactarius species- and bringing to to featured list status. The technical side of things bamboozled me (sub-genus? Category? Subcategory? The only sources I could find for that stuff were far too technical for me) but I did clean it up a bit and add some pictures- I think it looks a little better now. Fairy ring would be a fantastic idea, but I've had another idea- Portal:Fungi has not even been created, but because of the wealth of great articles and whatnot listed at the WikiProject page, I reckon I could knock up a great one in a few hours, then hopefully nominate that for featured portal status. Another project I was involved in, WikiProject heavy metal, have a featured portal here- apart from the news bit (I'm not really aware of much fungi related news- perhaps someone a little more involved in the world of fungi could maintain that?) I think we could easily base a portal on that, then add links to various articles (perhaps tag it on to some infoboxes or something). What do you reckon? J Milburn (talk) 12:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I've never been big on them either, but if we stick a few of these little things around various articles, and have a good supply of pictures (Commons has loads of great ones), articles (we have 11 good or featured articles, with possibly a few more on the way) and DYK items (over 100 listed on the project page) there's no reason we couldn't have a well-populated, well viewed portal. In terms of news, the last time I updated a fungi article with news was in September, when some people were poisoned after eating Amanita phalloides found in Ventnor Botanic Garden. I'll have a look at other portals and help pages, get to grips with how portals work, then crack on with it. J Milburn (talk) 13:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, spent a while on it, but I'm done enough to "open it to the public", as it were. The portal can be viewed at Portal:Fungi, and I've asked for comments on the WikiProject talk page. J Milburn (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Awesome idea
I think you deserve a barnstar.

Coding:

Ikip (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, that is awesome! :) Does it update regularly? BOZ (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know - I guess so as it is automatic (?) - have to ask ikip. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It absolutely does update.
 * The only time it would not update is when you are looking at an old cache, which is solved by clearing the cache by adding this at the end of the address, then reloading the page: ?action=purge . See Purge.
 * The cache is not going to an issue very often, if at all, because you won't need the list to update every few minutes. Ikip (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * What a unique gift! Please put me on your Christmas list this year, so I can look forward to more! Best wishes, see you in the WP:ARS AfD trenches! Ikip (talk) 00:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * FYI, did you notice that Tomb of Horrors is now our 9th GA? :) BOZ (talk) 01:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:Bird collab
Hi Casliber: I'm finally getting around to putting out another project newsletter, and am wondering if we've dropped the collaboration article idea. It seems to have been last updated about the same time as the last newsletter! :P Let me know if there's a new one, and I'll plug it... MeegsC | Talk 14:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah. Forgot about that. Look, drop a note saying we'll choose a new one Feb 14th (for valentines day :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Favor
Thanks for pointing that out to me. Could you do me a small favor? I need to move the article Ali-Ben Bongo to Ali Bongo Ondimba, as the latter is more often used, both in the press and official contexts. To do that, I need the redirect deleted. Everyking (talk) 02:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for making the requested move. Everyking (talk) 00:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Not to be completely random but . ..
Hey, I've seen you hanging around FAC, particularly at the Mother's Milk nom, and was wondering if you could review In Utero, which has a nomination that's received a surprisingly small amount of comments so far (this is probably the slowest FAC I've ever been involved in). Any comments are welcome. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * OH fuck, another band I am cool on and my partner loves....oh well....I'll take a look ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Jf268
G'day, I'm not sure where exactly I've interacted with you before, probably something bird related. I rather suspect that User:Jf268 is a sock puppet. Pretty much all of the users contributions are related to FPC (see ) over a period of a few months but I can't spot any correlation between Jf268 and any other user as far as votes are concerned. I think you have checkuser ability and was wondering what your opinion on the matter was? Noodle snacks (talk) 11:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have recently been granted checkuser rights but have not used them as yet, and have no experience in that area of wiki (FPC), as I would assume it must be someone with an interest there. I will ask others. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Fungi portal, again
Yeah, there are a lot of good fungi images about- I just didn't want to declare any as selected pictures unilaterally. I'm currently filtering through the featured pictures on foreign language Wikipedias- I've set up a nomination process on the portal, so if there still aren't enough selected images after that, I'll have a look around and nominate some of the better pictures. If there are any you particularly like, you're welcome to nominate some too. If I find any good enough, I may slide them FPCs way- the only featured fungi picture we have is File:Haeckel Lichenes.jpg, some more would be nice. J Milburn (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

no pages enwiki are private
I agree. I've referred to the space within my userspace as "personal", which is a different matter. I said I would discuss with Mattisse in private over a new place to meet, and by that I meant by email. I just wanted to be clear on that. There are reasons why I wish the conversations with Mattisse to take place onwiki, and Mattisse also has her reasons. I made a mistake by making comments about Giano. I recognise that. I have apologised for that. What I am concerned with now is moving the matter forward. I would appreciate your assistance in this matter.  SilkTork  *YES! 20:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've noticed the new kerfluffle (and that inaccurate statements continue to be made about me), but thought it best to stay away, as the situation is ever increasing in complexity. I hope it's OK to jump in here, since this is a page I have watchlisted.  SilkTork, perhaps you can be successful at getting Mattisse to realize that, considering the long list of FAs that warrant attention at WP:URFA, she might be well advised to avoid submitting FARs on articles in which she has engaged in disputes with the FA nominators.  That will help her nominations avoid appearing pointy; there are plenty of other FAs in need of attention, and it might appear that she has focused on the Giano/Bishonen/Geogre area.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am back in communication with Mattisse. I am advising her at the moment to not engage in FAC or FAR. And her comments on the RFC is that she wishes to stay away from it. There is still work to be done. But I am not mentoring Mattisse. I am not watching over her edits. I am befriending her. She wants to be productive on Wikipedia, and she has done and can do more good work. She works well on GA, asking for guidance and assistance. She is respected there and that gives her confidence to do well.


 * I am embarrassed by this incident because I made a couple of foolish and inappropriate comments. Though it is rare to find me making personal comments about others on Wiki (I have been rude to Lar and - ironically - to Mattisse, and that's about it in my time here), that doesn't excuse it. My wish now is to move on, and see what we can do to improve matters. Mattisse will not for the time being operate in that area that has caused people concerns. That removes the immediate conflict, and can be seen as a positive result for the RFC. I will continue my befriending of Mattisse. I have grown to like and respect her and find we have things in common. Before this RFC, and before getting to know her and examine some of the work she has done, I was fairly dismissive of her. All of us can misread situations and make mistakes. It's not making mistakes that is the problem, it's how we deal with our mistakes, and how we check that we are not continuing our mistakes. We all get hurt at times, and we all lash out at times. Now is the time to forgive, forget and move on. I'd like to think that Mattisse will get something out of all this, and that at some point in the future she can productively spread her wings to all areas of Wikipedia with confidence, tact and cooperative respect.  SilkTork  *YES! 00:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't followed closely the additional complexities or all of the posts involving FAR, so I'm unsure of everything you're referring to, or the origin of this notion (on the RfC) of avoiding FAC or the statements about hatred and hostility. I'm unclear why there remains this focus on FAC/FAR and certain editors, rather than the general issues.  I am aware, from comments on your now deleted chat, that my efforts to encourage Mattisse and move on from the RfC were not received in the spirit intended.  Anyway, I will be mostly off Wiki for the next few weeks and won't be able to follow further; I wish you well in your ongoing goals. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 08:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Addendum
Fine by me - have at it. Maybe we'll edit some horticulture articles sometime, another passion of mine but one I have done very little on-wiki to date. :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The horticulture articles do need serious attention. There is little organisation or control in that area. I've been trying to sort out what there is and bring some kind of structure and shape to it. Doing a bit of weeding and pruning and transplanting and other gardening metaphors!  SilkTork  *YES! 00:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ravenloft (module)
Hello! I am notifying you that a article you previously reviewed for FAC has been nominated again. Please, if you can, take the time to see if the article has been improved enough to consider supporting, and if not, let us know what needs improving. :) BOZ (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:FUNGI
Hey Casliber. I just signed up at WP:FUNGI, and after seeing that you've contributed some featured content to that project, I was wondering if you had any tips or suggestions for a newbie like myself. :) Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm...(scratches head) I dunno, start with what you're interested in is good. I find enthusiasm carries one a long way, and then some, but sometimes articles just come together well. I initially started working up Amanita muscaria for FAC in 2006 but got frustrated as it just didn't "come together" for some reason, so I left it and later found that Amanita phalloides just came together really well. I have finally returned to Amanita muscaria to try and get it over the line. Many many have little or incomplete information, so an unambiguous distinctive one is a good start. DYK is easy as there are loads with no articles at all still, then once you have familiarised yourself having buffed it for DYK, it is often easy to then see if GA is feasible and then even FA. I think there needs to be alot of material above and beyond what we know for many species to get to FA. For instance Paxillus involutus and Entoloma sinuatum are two I worked up and then have ummed and aahed since. If I can find a bit more on them they might be wirth a whirl too. Anyway, which articles take your fancy (for any stage - DYK/GA/FA)? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I'd like to try to write a GA, but as I'm unfamiliar with 'shrooms, I'm not entirely sure what articles are missing. Does that WikiProject have a list of articles to be created? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  01:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point. I will post some pointers at WP:FUNGI mainpage. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Cool, thanks. Boletus pinophilus looks interesting, so I'll take a stab at it in the morning. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  04:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, edulis could be huge...all those Carluccio recipes etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

A. muscaria
Hi Cas, had a look at the Mushroom Observer site, and then the 'net for a free pic of an A. muscaria button cross-section, but no dice. I guess your best bet is to find one yourself, like you suggested, or even draw your own. Another option would be checking some older texts to see if there's a free pic to scan in, but that might just turn out to be a goose chase. I'll keep my eyes open though, I recently acquired Buller's 5-volume set Researches on Fungi (1922), and its chock-full of cool little diagrams that I plan to sprinkle liberally in various fungi articles :) Sasata (talk) 05:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm - well it should not be too long before this fungal weed is popping up around northern hemisphere trees around Sydney, so I will check after the next heavy rainfall. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Dragonfly fishing
You'll like this. I've been spending some time in rural Bali. Yesterday, at a house in the middle of some rice fields with no other buildings for about a half km, a local woman came walking down the path with a bamboo pole about 3m long. The pole was a lot like a basic fishing pole; light and springy, and the last 1/2m was a bit of stiff wire lashed to the tip of the pole. The wire was coated in a gooey white sap. She was catching dragonflies with it. There were hundreds within easy sight. All she had to do was wave the end near them and they landed in the sap and she pulled it back, plucked off the wings, and did it again. She had a whole bag full; dinner. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Whoa, cool. Did you ask to try some? Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Tidak; not my dinner ;) lunch was good though. Stuff a bit more mainstream. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Termite Night

Bali has lots of bugs, and many are rather large. Rainy season begins in November. After the first good solid rain, some species of termite hatch in the billions. They're about 2cm long with a wingspan of 3cm. They take to the air one night and are attracted to light. They swarm every light bulb on the island and they especially like florescent lights, which are common as they are cheap to run. Many street lights are just a plain florescent fixture with a cheap indoor-grade switch mounted where anyone can turn it on or off as they see fit. The termites batter themselves against the light unceasingly. They idea seems to be a mating gathering and they keep it up until the wings are shed and they drop to the ground (with a mate?).

At Dewa Warung, they have a trick; they take a plastic bag and blow it up like a balloon and seal it shut with a hot kitchen implement. The bag is dipped in oil and pinned to a light fixture so that it's touching the bulb (even the incandescent bulbs are low enough wattage that they don't melt a hole). The termite wings really stick well to the oily bag and this accelerates the shedding of the wings. The Balinese also place a bowl with cooking oil in it directly under the bag to catch the now wingless termites. They are dipped in a batter and boiled, and offered to the tourists (most of whom balk — myself included), then they eat them to prove it's no joke.

On termite night, your best bet is to retire early with all the light out; if you don't they will find you. The next morning, all that remains are the wings. There are drifts of them easily 10cm deep in wide piles under every light that was on all night. They clog the paths and you walk through them like autumnal leaves. They are soon swept up and I would expect they're used for mulch or something; the Balinese waste nothing.

See Termite; is all true ;)

Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds February newsletter
The February 2009 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. MeegsC | Talk 21:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hope you're safe!
Hi Cas: Been reading and hearing some terrible things about the fires down there. I hope you and yours are all safe! MeegsC | Talk 21:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah I am fine - very urban where i am. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Paroxetine
Hi. I was wondering if you have any thoughts on the Paroxetine page. In my view, warnings about "suicide ideation" belong in a sub section and not the opening paragraph. Why is it that the risk of "suicide ideation" gets highlighted, but not the reduction in risk of actual suicide. Here is an article you may find useful: http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2008/11/after_2_decade_decline_teen_su.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.150.2.55 (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Amanita muscaria GA
The GA process is very slow and backlogged at the moment (or, was for me!) and the article is very close to being ready for a FAC. You'd probably be better off just spending a couple more weeks (or how ever long it takes- you may find yourself with a free day at some point- you never know) working it up to that standard, then submit it. You could possibly be waiting a month for a GA review. J Milburn (talk) 10:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I was musing on that. It has been raining pretty heavily here the lat few days so I might find some fly agarics around some pine trees here in Sydney (late summer here). You may be right...in which case, maybe I should just nom at FAC and see what happens, or are there some deal breakers left you reckon. (apart from streamlining the referencing) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The reference consistency would be a deal breaker for me, but that's one of my bugbears. I also strongly agree with Peter G Werner that a discussion of the microscopic features would be needed- a lot of our DYKs have them, so it wouldn't really be good if one of our FAs didn't. The rest are just minor points, which can be fixed in time, and there will surely be a few other such points brought up at FAC. J Milburn (talk) 10:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, ref consistency is a deal-breaker for Sandy as well :) I did finally add some material on spore size and amyloid status. PS: The photos I am most proud of...I got some Omphalotus nidiformis.....light on....light off :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh wow, they're fantastic! The longer I spend with this project, the more amazing fungi become for me. That article's not actually too far from being ready for a GA nomination, I'd say- I'd finish it off myself, but I can't say I'm well stocked on books about Australian fungi! J Milburn (talk) 11:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Aha, second guessed you there - Omphalotus nidiformis is a GA already :). I just couldn't make the article damn long enough to try and wedge the cool photos in somewhere. It was cool when I realised what they were too. These things were everywhere around autumn 2007 (Arpil) and I saw none last year, so hopefully this autumn should be cool :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Gah, should have known that. I knew I'd added the article to the portal, but I assumed it was as a selected species rather than as a selected article... J Milburn (talk) 11:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Adminship
Did I leave you a message, or has this just came out of the blue? I don't recall leaving you a message, but it is perfectly possible. As for writing, I am currently working on an FT with Ironholds, so that should be okay on that side. As a side note - I am not a deletionist (at least as far as I am aware...)

"Yep, wondered who you were and then saw the explanation page" leaves me to believe that you've actually messaged the wrong person, mind, as that seems to indicate you're replying to something, and I can't seem to find my signature on this page, and don't recall leaving you a message elsewhere. Am I missing something? Thanks. :) &mdash; neuro (talk) 07:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that clears it up. Have a good day. :) &mdash; neuro <font color="#5A3696">(talk) 14:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Amanita muscaria
I don't suppose there is any chance we could squeeze this or even this into your article. No? Ah well was worth a try, though I suspect they would not do great things to those desperately checking wikipedia to find out what the hell is happening to me. Har. Ceoil (talk) 01:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm...the first one is rather ambient, a nice relaxing rhythm yet strangely energizing as well...the second?....pretty out there, nice interpretative stuff..not bad actually. guess it may be better on a more general page such as can or mushroom :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Elonka
Hi. I am lecturing a graduate course in the University of Cambridge at the moment, so am on wikibreak. I contributed evidence to two recent arbcom cases (PHG and Fringe Science). I have a little experience editing medieval history articles related to the Crusader period. I removed one sentence written by User:Elonka from Knights Templar. She proceeded to perform a character assassination upon me on the talk page. I wonder whether you might prevail upon her to desist from this kind of personal attack in future. It was immoderate and completely untrue - an attempt to paint me as some kind of criminal. I made one edit. She seems to have completely over-reacted. Many thanks, Mathsci (talk) 22:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry I didn't get time for this today. I think I came online a little late in the peace. I might have to do a bit more reading. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

FAC comments
Thanks for taking the time to comment on my draft proposal. We obviously don't agree, but I shall do my best to take your comments into account. Best wishes, and good editing Physchim62 (talk) 11:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've also added some more detailed replies on the talk page. Physchim62 (talk) 14:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Cortinarius rotundisporus
--Dravecky (talk) 07:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Oversight?
Hi there, I recently received an email from Martyn Joseph requesting that the personal information on his article be removed. He particularly requested privacy in regards to his family (his daughter's birth date and his son's name were revealed) and faith. The material in question has since been removed, but could these revisions of the article qualify for oversight to further respect his wishes? Thanks. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin II
Casliber, I didn't nominate Led Zeppelin II for GA status but would there be anything wrong with me answering/responding to your questions in the review? Cheers. MegX (talk) 09:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Absolutely fine; you are more than welcome to chip in :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for all your help. MegX (talk) 00:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Cortinarius triumphans
--Dravecky (talk) 07:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Symposium: FAC and the sciences

 * Your input is requested, either Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#FAC_symposium or at the subpage where the effort will begin... Thanks! Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 10:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Boletus pinophilus
Thanks for the help, I really appreciate it. I'll search for the page numbers for those publications, but otherwise the references have been cleaned up. –Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  15:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK update
Hello. DYK is due for an update, and none of the regular DYK admins are around. Can you do an update? It should be from queue 5. Shubinator (talk) 23:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * ok. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'll do credits. Oh, and the bot count should be updated to 1. Thank you! Shubinator (talk) 23:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Edmontosaurus
Hi, Cas;

Any interest in having a look at Edmontosaurus? I have to warn you, it would take somewhat more time than Deinosuchus, as you know I have a tendency to go on and on... J. Spencer (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh, no problems. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you! FAC is indeed the eventual goal, but like I said with Deinosuchus, I haven't done that for a while. J. Spencer (talk) 02:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Smile!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

A NobodyMy talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Tricholoma terreum
I added an ALT hook to your DYK nomination and thought you may want to offer your opinion. Thanks. Lawshoot! 23:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Amanita muscaria
I've adjusted the refs so that they are formatted in a way consistent with the way the cite templates format them- the commas and semi-colons- and so they are a little more readable (A. B., instead of AB). If you're not happy with the changes, feel free to revert, but I think that the refs the way they were before were irritatingly inconsistent. If you opt to go for the formatting they were in before (Smith QW, Jones DV, Taylor GH etc...) then I think the best option will be to take them out of the templates all together, that will always try to use commas between first and last names, and semicolons between people. J Milburn (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, if they are all consistent now I will leave it. I do prefer the original but agree the template can introduce problems. It works ok if one puts all authors in author= slot, but it is way down in impotance in the scheme of things so thanks :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and a request
Thanks for signing up at Peer review/volunteers and for your work doing reviews. It is now just over a year since the last peer review was archived with no repsonse after 14 (or more) days, something we all can be proud of. There is a new Peer review user box to track the backlog (peer reviews at least 4 days old with no substantial response), which can be found here. To include it on your user or talk page, please add. Thanks again, and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that - a very useful little box :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:food & splayed/spork merger discussion
Just a heads up, we have a merge discussion posting section on the project page. --Jeremy (blah blah 20:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, how did I miss that? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Cardiology task force
-- MifterBot I (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 20:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Maen. K. A. (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Cortinarius caperatus
Shubinator (talk) 04:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Boletus pinophilus
Hi, just letting you know that I have passed the article. Thanks for your time with it, I don't know how you manage to fit so much in. J Milburn (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Neither do I, neither do I..... :P Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom enforcement
Excuse my bringing a tiresome matter to your attention but please take a look at AE which relates to an Arbcom ruling. Here we see User:ScienceApologist making a heated personal attack, quite contrary to the specific guidance at that page, which counsels against such slurs. This is not unusual, I suppose, but what shocks me is the attitude of the admin there. Rather than reproving this editor for his incivility, he just hands out warnings to the several editors with whom User:ScienceApologist is warring and so indulges his bad behaviour. I am left with the impression that the admin is partisan rather than impartial, though I may, of course, be missing something (and I am the butt of the tirade too).

We have similar complaints about other admins who appoint themselves to act in Arbcom's name - Elonka is a high-profile example. Please consider appointing admins directly for enforcement of vexatious matters, so that neutral admins of high probity may resolve such cases, rather than those who may be attracted to the case for their own reasons. I am not sure who these paragons might be but User:Uncle G is one that I have considerable respect for. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Rational emotive behavior therapy
Is this a real therapy? It reads very new age, but you'd know better. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 17:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'ts real..and notable - it is/was an offshoot of CBT. Many figures in psychotherapy over the years have developed their own styles of therapy and given them names. It does get quite annoying when meny have features in common that impress as very similar but with different names. I did plan on looking at these at some stage.


 * This one was never much used here in Oz, and I don't think it is used much now in the US - mainstream Treatment Guidelines etc. don't mention it to my knowledge. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't find much, and again, the article reads like a bunch of new age woo.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 16:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds March newsletter
The March 2009 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Impeachment
For lack of FA/GA contributions!  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 02:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * not for lack of trying... Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Improvement drive
So as not to clutter Sandy's page (which is so fun to do) - I normally work on sections from those related to my user page lists. I can handle them easily. However, there are things that pop up all of the time at the Poetry page or other types of areas. Milhist has a lot of people. Places like Wikiproject Poetry only have three active members. There are pages that were once FA that need repair. Something like Pound's Cantos need to be worked on. Then you have people like Jayvdb who works on the journals project. There is a lot of work that needs to be done there. I would think of what a core issue Wikipedia needs. You were going around working on some topics (like ghost). Perhaps go through and get all of the "basic" monsters filled in and improved? Those would be highly searched topics. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I know. I need to finish a couple of things before really giving ghost a going over...Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Quick favour if possible
Hey Casliber, I have a commited identity which I've put on a subpage in my userspace and sub'd it into my main userpage. Is their any way I can get the subpage protected so it can't be changed just to be extra sure no one tampers with it.

Get back to me on my talk page whenever you get a second. Cheers.
 * Cabe 6403  (Talk•Sign!) 19:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Perfect mate, many thanks Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign!) 20:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

New board maybe?
Right now 6 of the 8 AE threads are on fringe and pseudo-science related things, makes me wonder if we need a Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Fringe crap board.  MBisanz  talk 01:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess combining the AE (subsection fringe etc.) and Fringe Noticeboard would be good, with a subheader for AE problems might be a step forward...Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Moon of Pejeng
Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * aka the Pejeng Moon
 * is the largest single-cast bronze kettle drum in the world
 * is more than two thousand years old
 * is missing from en:wp
 * See: Bulan Pejeng
 * and http://www.terrastories.com/bearings/bali-moon-pejeng and whatever else Google can dredge up


 * Wow! another thing to make an article about...I will look when I get a chance.Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There are a couple of pages on this in Pringle;
 * I'll look tonight and may stub this puppy in a day or two. The Dragonfly fishing woman was in Pejeng; it's close-by, so I'll be able to get a free picture some time (priest allowing). Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll look tonight and may stub this puppy in a day or two. The Dragonfly fishing woman was in Pejeng; it's close-by, so I'll be able to get a free picture some time (priest allowing). Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That's great - four hands a-typing will facilitate a DYK....Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As seen by the blue links above, I have started the article. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 09:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems A Someone is monitoring my posts and assuming bad faith. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Calling facts facts is what I do; only non-serious accounts use the immature nonsense term "cruft". Anyway, you'd think you would appreciate the help getting this article started, which was a good faith effort to work collegially.  Regards, --A NobodyMy talk 17:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Mere assertion. You should get a grip on the true gravitas of your opinions. Jack Merridew 06:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And you should stop assuming bad faith and editing tendentiously. Now, let us get back to improving the article for which this thread concerns.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks for the horror barnstar for Bride of Frankenstein. It was an arduous process; good to know that the community appreciates the effort. Otto4711 (talk) 10:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming question
You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names, a procedure has been developed at WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Casliber, belated post holiday thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed by an embarrassingly wide margin. There's a full glitzy Oscar style version of my acceptance speech here, but I wanted to thank you specifically as "helpful and positive in outlook" was a very nice thing to say.  Were <font color="FFA500">Spiel <font color="FFC0CB">Chequers  21:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

"thanks for bringing it to our attention SirFozzie"
I must have missed something. Where did SirFozzie alert ArbComm/Clerks that he had modified the case page? Hipocrite (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Right here Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Er, that's the case page itself. Hipocrite (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, whatever. It is on the table now and dated yesterday, so now comes the fun and games of deciding demarkation. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

G.E. Rumphius
New stub; know much about this fellow? Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * new redirect; Georg Eberhard Rumphius. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Cheers Cas,, have been distracted by local Avian population, and having digital camera probs. I see you are working as hard as ever. Luridiformis (talk) 12:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Research request
Hi Casliber. While exploring the User talk pages of proflic editors, I somehow came across your name. I'm doing a research project at UCSC about Wikipedia and I see that you're very active member (even sitting on several committees?). If you have the time, I would love to hear about your thoughts and experience on Wikipedia. The discussion is currently underway at my talk page, it would be great if you could jump in wherever you have a comment.

Have a nice evening! Thanks for your time. Rodomontade (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * ok I will :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Disruption by A Nobody at Editor review/A Nobody
Hi. Thanks for closing the above thread. Yesterday, I commented at Editor review/A Nobody and it was removed (twice, thrice) by A Nobody. There followed a fair bit of discussion by him and others about this. I have restored my comment and stated that it should not be removed again. More eyes welcome. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Look, I am happy to work constructively with anyone and I created Moon of Pejeng as a good faith gesture in that direction. The subsequent rant against me was out of line and counterproductive.  I am more than happy to help you work on articles; I am not interested in being talked down however, because I can and will take criticisms from Casliber and DGG as valid, but I cannot from you given your history, so let them tell me anything of note and I'll gladly avoid lecturing to you.  Now if you want more help with articles, drop me a line.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You have no right to remove my comments other than in your userspace; others have told you this. I agree with much of what DGG told you and told him so on his talk page. You should listen to him. Please do not remove my comments again; really, you're shooting yourself in the foot. Jack Merridew 05:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I asked for good faith feedback in that discussion that I started; I did not invite bad faith and unconstructive commentary. Your comments are not welcome on that venue, because they are not what I started that discussion for.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 06:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * and I offered: You ask for 'constructive criticism'; read and heed the criticism offered by editors in this review. That's the point of requesting it. Modify your behaviour and attitude where you get consistent advice from a variety of sources to do so. Change your style and areas of editing.diff (last bit) Just drop this; really. Jack Merridew 06:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * While I have greatly modified how I edit here as I rarely comment in AfDs anymore and the last two actually argued to delete, you keep making AfD comments like this that add nothing serious to the discussions. As such, how can I not feel like "who are you to tell me anything"?  Jack, I am willing to work with you on articles, but given your history and my past experiences with you, "advice" is hard to be taken as much of anything and I cannot imagine any reasonable editor seeing otherwise.  It's beyond a pot calling kettle black scenario.  If you start an Editor review on yourself and don't want me commenting, fine.  And as such, I would hope that you would revert back to the archived version in mine, because you posted a hypocritical rant that fails to say mention my good faith effort in actually welcoming you back depsite my reservations with you being unblocked or to even create that Moon of Pejeng article to help get that started.  I cannot tell you how disappointed I was after creating the article to see something other than "Thanks for getting that started, now let's..." on Cas's page.  But instead it was back to trying to keep some dispute going.  They say no good deed goes unpunished and apparently that's the case.  By the way, apologies to Casliber for his talk page being used in all of this.  Please do the right thing and revert your edit and either let's work together constructively on articles or ignroe/avoid each other.  I'm open to either.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 06:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The right thing is to drop this with my comments intact. You are are focused on me, not what I said. I am open to working with you in the future, but for the moment, I (and others) believe disengaging is best. Besides, I have a plane to catch and will be off-wiki for the rest of the week.
 * As to 'who am I to tell you anything' — I am an editor of this project and I am no fool. I am back because a fair number of folks know this. You need to stop trying to cast me as a second-class editor. Ignore this advice at your peril; you're digging the hole deeper faster than anyone could for you. Jack Merridew 06:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the right thing is for you to remove what you know to have been made in bad faith and which is dishonest. I am happy to disengage for now and work on articles in the future, but after all the hyperbole White Cat and I were met with only to be proven right about you...no, you do not get to mischaracterize me in something I started with the hope of receiving actually constructive and worthwhile feedback.  I hope you can be better than that.  Anyway, have a safe flight!  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 06:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Terima kasih; I'm flying Garuda; sorry, the airline. Jack Merridew 07:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that you'd inverted the section heading here; That's profoundly disruptive. Jack Merridew 08:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible.

Barley
I just wanted to make sure that you realised that Two Row actually redirects to that section of the article, not the barley article as a whole. Guettarda (talk) 13:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I did. Was pondering what to do about that later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The work of deleting IP vandalism on chem element pages
Since you've been involved in fixing element article IP vandalisms, I wonder if you'd like to comment on this discussion on semi-protection for element articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements Thanks! S B Harris 23:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding suggestions from talk page, editor review
Hello! Do you mean stuff along the lines of Peer review/Treveri/archive1? Thanks for your time and help! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes! have a read as it is fairly esoteric. If there are any passages you have difficulty underrstanding, say so and request whether there is a simpler way of saying it in plainer words (but without losing meaning). Some of the paras are stubby and correct some typos. Have at it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll read through it again now. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 05:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Editor review
I have no intention of edit-warring the closure. I do find it sad that the review remained open so long as the comments were positive, but once it got to the negative sides of A Nobody's editing, like the deceptive edit summaries and implausible explanations for his vanishing act, the review was suddenly considered to have degenerated. Negative comments are useful input for any editor that has any serious intent at improvement. The community's acceptance of the vanishing act is something that I have to swallow and live with, but his continued defense of deceptive edit summaries is extremely troubling.&mdash;Kww(talk) 05:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Please stop mischaracterizing my edit summaries. As explained numerous times, if you discount TTN's unilateral and against consensus redirects as I did, the summaries make sense, i.e. when compared with the last edits prior to the unilateral and against consensus redirects.  In that regarded I did exactly what I said I did in the edits and heck, half the editors I have to take critcisms from don't even use edit summaries.  As always, if you would like to edit constructively on any articles, I am always happy to help.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 05:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, the gist of it is that the Editor Review is opened by the editor in question and remains the prerogative of that editor. Note that this situation is entirely different to RfC or AN/I. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose that what bothers me in case like this that I consciously do things to either be nice to editors who persist in being mean to be or to at least avoid escalating things with them. For example, I am deliberately not ocmmenting in Articles for deletion/Them Terribles so as not have another keep as a dig to Kww, but these good faith efforts are either ignored or not acknowledged.  I can think of many instances in which I intentionally did something I thought to be nice to certain editors and yet being nice or even trying to ignore them doesn't seem to elicit a reation in kind.  I think Thumperward is an exception in that regards as he for one has at least reached out.  But others have been more disappointing in that regard.  As Casliber knows, I am happy to help anyone in a constructive fashion and I do what I can to welcome editors, fix grammar etc.  Given that the last two AfDs I commented in were to delete and that it's been days since I even commented in any, I guess getting guff over stuff that is totally inconsistent with my current editing patterns is frustrating, because it's like, well, look I argue to delete more, I don't comment in AfDs as much, so what the heck?  Never mind that I welcome thousands of editors, give people smiles, fix punctuation and reference formats, i.e. the overwhelming bulk of my editing anymore.  When I asked for feedback, it was more along the lines of how I am currently editing not stuff from months back.  But like I said, I am here to help improve the project and am willing to engage and work with anyone else who is here to do that, not to trade insults.  So, let's do just that, i.e. let's work to build and better this wonderful opportunity to create a paperless enyclopedia!  Have a nice night!  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 05:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

South Tangerang
DYK… that this city of a million people has no article on en:wp? Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Aha, excellent find. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It is, of course, south of Tangerang which has another 1.5 million people. See;
 * Kota Tangerang Selatan and another that needs merging-in;
 * Tangerang Selatan (Kota is 'city', Selatan, 'south')
 * It is new, having been recently split off the main city. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Cockatoos
Well if there were a single source I would not have put it where I put it. We cannot (at present) put the whole thing in the article. But we can add some of the info. Here's how:

Every time we cite a cladistic study, we automatically accept arguments from parsimony. This is not immediately obvious to the novice reader, but if would not accept arguments from parsimony, each and every cladistic analysis is baseless mumbo-jumbo.

We could not argue like this if this were Conservapedia or if we'd subscribe to intelligent design - a Creator could invoke any trait out of thin air, without precedent in the ancestors. Whereas if you accept the premises of cladistic studies as valid, it is automatically accepted that anything that is frequent in the basal and rare in the advanced lineages of a clade is presumed to be the ancestral character state because "it is more parsimonious" to assume a single origin than multiple origins.

So we can take all the phylogenetics papers that have been published - as we'll do anyway - and arrive at a consensus phylogeny. And we can reference the appearance of all cockatoos with a single source - Juniper/Parr, HBW, Forshaw/Cooper for example (I would not prefer HBW here, as the other sources are more detailed) and cross-refer them to the consensus phylogeny. And then we can say "It is notable that among the basal lineages, the following plumage patterns are generally seen: ... This suggests that it is most parsimonious that such plumage was already present in the last common ancestor of all living cockatoos."

We could cite some phylogenetics textbook's part on character evolution for this, but we don't cite a physics textbook's part on gravity either any time some article mentions something falling down.

Taking this, we can note that certain plumage patterns are seen in (almost) all the basal lineages and only lost in the advanced lineages. "Almost" because the question of why Probosciger is aterrimus ("the blackest") is unresolved. So we cannot be certain about details, but we can point out that all the data contradicts certain patterns of plumage evolution pretty certainly. As regards the original cockatoos, what is unparsimonious would for example be:
 * Absence of barring, in particular in the tail feathers.
 * Absence of intense carotenoid coloration on the head, especially the ear region.
 * Some elongation of the crown feathers (though this need not have been a crest - something like seen in Deroptyus would fit the bill just as well).
 * Absence of any carotenoid coloration outside head and undertail coverts (i.e. body plumage pure black, grey or white without any brownish hue).

What we can also use is one of the psittaciform phylogenies that puts the NZ clade at the base (which is essentially any modern psittaciform phylogeny) as corroborating evidence - a cryptic pattern involving some degree of barring is appartently plesiomorphic for all crown Psittaciformes (and I suspect for all Psittaciformes in general).

In any case, one thing needs to be noted: the placement of the Cockatiel is not determinable with certainty at present! (IIRC one possibility is slightly more likely than the other, but I'd have to sift through all the papers to find out which. Given how singular it is, even that cannot be regarded as proof; we need fossil evidence from near the point where the Cockatiel branched off from the other lineages, and we do not have this.) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 09:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Gang Gang might actually not warrant inclusion in either subfamily - while the analysis results for the Cockatiel are contradictory because you can get quite good support for either possibility (IIRC), Callocephalon simply refuses to fit into the "nice" dichotomies phylogenetics software will try to construct. As regards the synthesis stick, my take is with WP:BURDEN - it is pretty hard to challenge the obvious (namely that some taxon has some phenotypical traits), especially considering Felsenstein's "Phylogenies and the comparative method" (which should provide sufficient justification for a "naive" character mapping) gets cited in scholarly works on average once every three days since 24 years... Note though that as soon as the phylogeny gets contentious, a dedicated source is surely needed - see for example the very fine paper here.

One can actually turn the burden of evidence, in this case for example: "provide a source that suggests that the LCA of cockatoos was all-white/all-black". Otherwise, where would one stop? The conclusion that chimpanzees were never bipedal in their evolution is generally accepted at face value by precisely the same reasoning, although there is simply not a single shred of material evidence to support this assumption: no fossils on the chimp side of the lineage are known, and the fossils on the human side of the lineage are all (at least preferentially) bipedal.

But as I said, claims cannot be made with finality as long as there is no study where Probosciger tail and cheek feathers have been photographed in UV or observed under a SEM. What we can do at this point is to observe the obvious, describe the situation as far as can be plainly seen.

PS: the molphyl/clock studies of psittaciforms and the fossil record square NO WAY, you guys gotta be careful. The recent "proves Cretaceous" paper was technically far better as I thought, but in the context of Wikipedia it would be accused on severe POVpushing... For one thing, the Cretaceous scenario together with the molphyl trend to put them close to passeriforms (which may well be good, though I suppose not as close as the first large-scale trees suggest) puts the origin of a lot of birdy stuff into the Mesozoic nether regions. Also, a lot of fossils that ought to be there have not turned up, I mean not even traces in well-studied regions. And finally, the entire theory is probabilistic, but if that other paper on Cenozoic NZ and sea levels is right (it is cited off-handedly in the Cretaceous paper), the probability for a deep Mesozoic origin of the Psittaciformes is around 2.769126%ish ;-) (it is hard for kakapo ancestors to survive on a submerged microcontinent...) If they had titled it "cannot refute a Cretaceous origin", I'd have been delighted. But this way, it is just like the bad old times of molphyl 15 years ago -trying to outrace each other with data with a signal/noise ratio that reaches abysmality after 100 Ma.

Today's work: smelly frogs, or so it seems. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 05:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Agaricus subrufescens
This medical mushroom article has seen significant change lately if you'd like to have a boo.LeadSongDog <font color="red" face="Papyrus">come howl 18:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Will try to. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Musca vetustissima
aka the Australian bush fly. It seems the proper name; Google. I found this here; Aussie salute and here; Articles for deletion/Aussie Salute (second nomination) and see it mentioned here; WikiProject Australia/To-do ( which may be your doing ;). G'day, Jack Merridew 11:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)