User talk:Casliber/Archive 29

WikiCup 2010 January newsletter
We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. We've had some shakeups regarding late entries, flag changes and early dropouts, but the competition is now established- there will be no more flag changes or new competitors. Congratulations to, our current leader, who, at the time of writing, has more listed points than and   (second and third place respectively) combined. A special well done also goes to - his artcle Jewel Box (St. Louis, Missouri) was the first content to score points in the competition.

Around half of competitors are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. 64 of the 149 current competitors will advance to round 2- if you currently have no points, do not worry, as over half of the current top 64 have under 50 points. Everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places in round 2! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! J Milburn, Garden, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Unearthed Arcana
Figure Unearthed Arcana is ready for a GAN yet? :) BOZ (talk) 05:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Possibly. Will check later tonight. Very quick point - I recalled at the time that cavaliers severely disrupted game balance as some other options may have done. Is there anything like this documented in a reliable source? It really did change the game. Also, the idea of how much overlap in content there was between the two books. I am not familiar with the 3rd ed one, just the first ed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I have any sources that get into how much cavaliers may have changed the game, but the WD review at least did get into that concept a bit. I don't think there was any overlap in content at all, and I don't believe I have a source that touched on that any more than very superficially. BOZ (talk) 12:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Bother. I hate it when I can't find sources for stuff I know to be true :/ Nevermind, I think it is comprehensive enough to put in the GAN queue...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, the GA review is up in case you have any time coming up to help out. :) BOZ (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Golden White-eye
I was wondering if you could take a quick look at this article to see what else it might need for FAC? Thanks. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  06:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

stake yer claims
If I ain't mistaken, you ain't gonna get no points for that FA, nor those GAs, nor those DYKs, until ya submit claims for them at WikiCup/History/2010/Submissions/Casliber. Pull yer finger out and stake yer claims, so I get to see you rocket up the leaderboard. Hesperian 13:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. I listed sessilis up too for GAN. The next question is the rangemap for sphaerocarpa. I am expecting it to pass GAN next time Guettarda pops online - I pinged Gnangarra but not sure if he's too busy. It is a challenge with five colours.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I did the Isostylis map with three colours because there is no range overlap. But when I tried to do a multi-colour map for sessilis, the range overlaps rendered all my attempts disastrous. So I gave up and did a single-colour map. There's nothing wrong with this—it shows the range of the species—it just isn't as informative as a map that distinguishes the ranges of the varieties. With respect to sphaerocarpa, there is substantial overlap between var. sphaerocarpa and every(?) other variety, and I suspect that a multi-colour map will be too hard. To come to the point: Gnangarra's maps are better than mine, and it has been a while since we managed to drag him into Banksia. Let's wait and see what he says/does. If he is too busy, then I am happy to have a go at a multi-colour map, and, failing that, whip up a single-colour map. Hesperian 14:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * okay. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

What are you doing?
The ARS has been disrupting AFDs I've been reading for the last week or more. They slap "references" on articles that barely mention the article subject, and drop misleading (and sometimes blatantly untrue) keep comments at AFD. Posting a note to the talkpage regarding their activities is not unacceptable, and you shouldn't be removing it. I'm sure the ARS started out with the best of intentions. In my view, it is no longer serving any useful purpose. Unit Anode  13:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * How on earth is/are comments like this helpful??? Come on,think about it - you won't convince anyone on the 'other side', just annoy folks further. Suspect sources will be revealed as such should it come to AfD. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's at AFD, and we have people muddying the waters with blatantly false or deceptively misleading statements. Unit  Anode  13:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Casliber: it may not have been a helpful comment, but I don't think pointing out an unhelpful comment is the best way to respond... why not address whether you think there is any merit in the criticism lodged against the ARS here on your talk page? More specifically, do you think that some of the references added are subpar? ++Lar: t/c 22:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Some of Unitanode's comments have been unhelpful in a time of frayed tempers and high emotions, as have some of yours, and encouraging or defending such behaviour is especially so. I remind you that wikipedia is not a battleground and that many of our objectives are common. The main problem with the page in question is the interpretation of notability and components thereof of professors/academic guidelines, hence general speculation on that page is unhelpful. As several parties have fairly fixed views on that and are unlikely to change the opposite side, it will rely on numbers to show consensus. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see that you've answered the question. It seems a simple enough one to me. Is there any merit to the critical suggestion that some references added by ARS members are subpar? I suppose instead we could discuss who's done what when and who encouraged what when and so forth, but that wasn't why I popped by. ++Lar: t/c 22:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * as far as references added anywhere on any pages - I don't know. I haven't vetted ARS contributions to that detail. On that page, I don't have a particular problem. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Does it merit investigation, do you think? ++Lar: t/c 23:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

(sigh) I don't think there is any "grand conspiracy" to secrete unreliable references to articles, no. I am sure that as everywhere, folks will sometimes add sources here and there that might not be the best ones to add for various reasons. As these articles are often being scrutinised at AfD, I suspect they get vetted at the time by those watching. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

PS: Right now we're at a bit of a crossroads and folks are just now starting to pull in the same direction. We can either move forward or we can start sniping at the other side's behaviour. Your choice Lar. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's awesome that you are starting, at last, to pull in the right direction, but that's been my choice all along, so I'm not sure where you're going with this. I turned up to ask a simple question and got a runaround. ++Lar: t/c 00:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * @ Lar: How is it a runaround? It wasn't that simple. You asked my opinion - I gave it. So I'd ask you to stop casting aspersions on my response. You're welcome to open some investigation or do whatever you like as far as I am concerned. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Simply put, it took me several tries to get an answer to my question, and when I did, it was accompanied by some sort of veiled reference to sniping. That's a runaround. Hope that helps clear things up. ++Lar: t/c 02:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You changed your question part way through from a request for opinion to that of an investigation, and now you are twisting it to make me look evasive. So this sort of behaviour from you makes me not want to continue this discussion. I had quite enough of you changing focus in a past discussion and resulting in slurs against me so I think we'll leave it at that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But, but... you are being evasive, I think. I ask a question, you cast aspersions on me, I let it be and calmly try to get an answer again and around we go. Lather, rinse, repeat, but season with your accusations from some unspecificed past conversation. Ok, I get it. Really, Casliber, I expected better. ++Lar: t/c 06:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem with the "references" that people have slapped on articles is that, in many cases, the article subject is barely mentioned (perhaps quoted about someone else, for example), but then that "reference" is used to supposedly establish notability -- which passing mentions like that, do not --and as a way to recommend "keep" at AFDs. And these ARS tags get slapped on the AFDed article, and the same crew seems to swoop in and recommend "keep, keep, keep" all in succession, with the barest of rationales. I'm, frankly, tired of it. Unit  Anode  00:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not as simple as that in the Moller page and you know it. Sometimes mentions can be brief but significant, such as where Moller was consulted. Also, a primary source is okay if it is a (espeically large) institution listing somewhere someone works. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but in the Moller article, it seems that many of the references simply amount to a bibliography of the guys' own books. And, no, brief mentions, even if it talks about his consulting work, do not satisfy the non-trivial portion of the notability requirement. As for the primary source issue, if the primary source is combined with multiple secondary and non-trivial sources, then sure. If not, then no, it doesn't establish him. Unit  Anode  00:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The bibliography helps establish the books exist in and of themselves. Look, from researching as I have, in just about all areas I write in, the internet represents the tip of the iceberg. And I don't even speak swedish in this case. There is enough to satisfy me and my interpretation of the guidelines. Clearly there isn't for you. That is okay and I can live with that. We often wish the tide of notability were more in keeping with our own ideal one, but it isn't. Anyway, I doubt there is anything either of us can say to convince the other so I think it best to leave it at that eh? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It now appears that an actual Swedish-speaker (Bishonen) is not nearly so impressed. As she's gone to bed, let's wait to see what she has to say about it ... eh? :) Unit  Anode  05:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

 I looked into this and fleshed-out TomCat's reference padding with an eye towards highlighting its inappropriate nature. See here. It seems to have worked as if you hit next you'll see that another editor carved the puff away. The issue here is that some quarters seek to 'keep' pretty much regardless of context. If they are allowed to muddy the categorisation of unsourced BLPs they will have done the project serious harm. See Bali ultimate's user page; he's suggested another MfD re ARS. Me, I'm more inclined to do an RFC as MfD#4 suggested. Jack Merridew ''';) 02:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * @Jack, yeah well it's not as if there aren't editors who vote delete as a matter of course regardless of content either, and these certainly outnumber the keepers from what I have seen. I agree in that I predict a MfD will be inconclusive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There may, in fact, be such editors. However, I don't see an "Article Deletion Squad" recruiting them and pointing them at AFDs to do so. As for a potential MFD, a courageous admin would simply delete it as an unhelpful and disruptive page. Unit  Anode  03:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Aha, but many of them spend alot of time at AfD anyway. Disruptive is a subjective term here. They are doing more work improving (as opposed to deleting) articles than some other editors. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If by "improving", you mean slapping any ref they can possibly find, and then claiming "Keep, it's notable", then yes. Deleting unsourced and poorly-sourced non-notable BLPs is working on the side of the angels, Casliber. Unit  Anode  04:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Casliber, Lar called you a "crappy mentor" because you did not support his version of events before. More recently he gave Scott MacDonald a barnstar who said he had "utter contempt" for "community consensus", and deleted several articles out of process which the community did not support by margin of 3 to 1. Lar, is this what you call "I think it's awesome that you are starting, at last, to pull in the right direction"?

I would just let this section die Casliber, or better yet archive it. Edits begat edits.

RE casliber to Lar: "encouraging or defending such behaviour is especially so"

More of the same, we all know what edit diffs I am thinking of....

RE: "But, but... you are being evasive, I think. I ask a question, you cast aspersions on me, I let it be and calmly try to get an answer again and around we go. Lather, rinse, repeat, but season with your accusations from some unspecificed past conversation."

Well, isn't this WP:Kettle I recall some questions I have specifically ask you in the past Lar, and you ignored them repeatedly.

"The ARS has been disrupting AFDs I've been reading for the last week or more."

Talking about disruption Unitanode, keep in mind that the community ban which I initiated should have passed because of your disruption, so there is not much room for you to complain about others disruption. The only reason it didn't pass, is you promised to calm down.

Lar, you are judged by the company you keep, keep that in mind when you repeatedly are defending disruptive actions such as Unitanode's.

I am sure you would rush to the defense of unitanode if she was put on notice at wikiquettue for calling another editor a WP:DICK. This one is good to: "The only thing "incompetent" here is that people bitching aren't sourcing." I can imagine another prescriptive/descriptive argument.

Take the WP:BATTLE somewhere else. There are thousands of "sewer" "crappy" "garbage" (good-faith contributions) of editors to delete. Ikip 06:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This is who you align yourself with, Casliber? As for your "ban", Ikip, I will shortly be starting up my program again, as it has been very successful in getting unsourced BLPs sourced, deleted, or stubbed. Once I begin again, start the "ban" discussion up again. Make certain you use all the rhetorical flourishes at your disposal. Fight for those unsourced BLPs, Ikip! Unit  Anode  07:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * its done. WP:ARS/BLP search by importance (A B C), scroll down to the A's in the list. you will be surprised at some of these on the list.Ikip 05:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

fancruft as a BLP concern
Really, the shite gums up everything. Until today, if you visited any of the following:


 * List of Young Australian of the Year Award recipients
 * Victorian College of the Arts Secondary School
 * Hazel Hawke

and your interest was piqued by Rebecca Chambers, a concert pianist, and you chose to click the link on offer, you were greeted with:

and more prattle about GameDaily's "Babe of the Week" — "Resident Evil's youngest member battles zombies and other horrors so you don't have to. That makes her a true American hero."
 * Rebecca Chambers is a member of STARS' Bravo team, who is in charge of rear security, and serves as the team's medic.

The littluns are filling this project to overflowing with dross and, in the case of Rebecca Chambers (pianist), they blithely insult real people. I shudder to think about what's really going on with lists like the redlinks to gay porn vid actors. See Ben Andrews who was linked from an old version of that list as:
 * Ben Andrews - 2008 Golden Dickie winner, "Best twink performer - top"

Jack Merridew 20:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing the disambiguations then. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you missed the point. ++Lar: t/c 17:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you see that I created both articles about the non-fancruft real people? Sincerely, Jack Merridew 23:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Errr...yes Lar I had figured that one out.


 * And yes Jack, am pleased to see content creation. Well, we can all switch places sometimes....Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Frederick the Great and Coffee
Sorry, but I can't help pointing out WP:NOTBROKEN ;) - keep up the great work on Coffee anyway. Best, --RexxS (talk) 12:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha, okay. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of R2C2
Hello! Your submission of R2C2 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Bradjamesbrown (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Lulworth Skipper at GAN
Just to let you know I have responded to your concerns raised at the GAN of Lulworth Skipper - I was inactive for a couple of days due to real life commitments. As I said there, I wasn't able to find anything in my current sources or those online about the issues you raised (predation etc.), however I will try in the near future to add something. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, will revisit. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Pederastry in the Renaissance
I saw you put the Historical Pederastic Relationships article for deletion. Does this one look like it should be too? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_the_Renaissance--Tonalone (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought about nominating it, but at least the Florentine part is much better supported by this book. (Oddly enough, the book had working limited preview in google a few days ago. Perhaps they decided it's not a good idea... See the blurb for the 1st printing, which is explicit enough.) Pcap ping  20:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * After I had look at a few books in this area, the more general concept is age–structured homosexuality (do a google books search). Quite a few of Haiduc's articles should be renamed that way (i.e. from "X pederasty" or "prederasty in X" to "age–structured homosexuality in X"). Often enough the contents overflows the narrower concept of pederasty, which is somewhat ill defined. This book for instance clearly defines pederasty := same-sex pedophilia, which more restrictive that what the wiki article on pederasty uses. Also, in Haiduc's articles there's also no attempt to make the distinction between institutionalized pederasty, e.g. (e.g. Ancient Greece) and the deviant behavior that can be expected in any society. I'm pretty sure the methodological fuzziness was intentional. I'm amazed that nobody at the sexuality or LGBT WikiProjects raised these issues. Perhaps we should move/continue this discussion there. Pcap  ping  20:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Raised...these...goddammit. I chastised Haiduc a couple times for using shitty citations and sourcing, but I do not know why he was banned. That ANI thread and the quiet ArbCom action is disturbing. I've seen editors allowed to disrupt content maintenance much more severely and apparently be coddled for it. I have already written to Risker asking for clarification. While Haiduc was conveniently imprecise--or lazy--about some issues surrounding pederasty, I do not believe that pederasty issues should be deleted. This is not my area of expertise, but I had to wade through quite a few books about homosexuality in ancient Greece, Rome, Africa, Japan, and China to construct parts of the Lesbian article, and it really bothers me that today's cultural taboos are being applied to social practices that do not compare. The same cultural precision is also applied, for example, to women in the 19th century, before the term "lesbian" had the connotation it does today. Again, disturbing, and darkness and silence makes it moreso. --Moni3 (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Arrgh - reply overload - okay to Pcap, good points. Re age-related homosexuality and "deviant" (WRT culture) vs enculturated relationships. Still musing on the Florence situation as that is a fascinating one. As well as LGBT boards, one could raise it at sociology or psychology. To Moni3, do I think we should cover the breadth and richness of homosexual culture over the ages? Absolutely. What I objected to...well I spelt it out in the AfD really. I'll send an email too as I'd rather not discuss it on an open/public board. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The IRC must be buzzing with these issues. We had three early closures of Albanian pederasty AfD, the first two of them edit conflicted. I still think content issues should be discussed on wiki, even if the topic is nasty. Perhaps we should create ArbCom-registered socks and proceed that way? Pcap ping  22:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I have only been on IRC once for about 2 minutes in the whole time I've been here. (sigh) Agree re content issues. I am concerned about a hysteria developing. Luckily mass AfDs can be quick-closed as not proper. Also we have a five day timespan and etiquette. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I've solved the issue with the Renaissance article. See more discussion at User talk:Bali ultimate. Pcap ping  23:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI: The AfD timespan has been increased to "at least seven full days" a while back. See DEL. Pcap ping  23:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

User: Tony Sandel, a significant editor to various pedophilia-related lists has been banned as well. See for relevant articles; you !voted in the AfD for one of them already. Pcap ping  12:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Similar stuff
Also, new AfD: Articles for deletion/Pederastic relationships in classical antiquity. Pcap ping  12:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I was cleaning up Category:Modern pederasty, when I ran into Harry Stack Sullivan&mdash;a psychiatrist, so his article may be of some interest to you. The source cited there does advance the possibility he had a pederastic relationship, but it's nowhere near as definitive as the wiki article. Of course our departed friend was the one who added the juicy details. It needs a fair bit of work to present the controversy adequately. This kind of articles shows why such a (binary, of course) category is a rather bad idea. Only a couple of NAMBLA types unambiguously fit in it. Pcap ping  19:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm - had not encountered this about Sullivan before, but then again I have not read about him biographically much. Interesting. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what, if anything, we should do with Pederasty in the Middle East and Central Asia. A lot of it was written by Haiduc, but it has also seen significant edits by others since; mostly by adding contents, but also some POV removal.Pcap ping  10:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Alot of it reads like an essay, with conjecture, hypothesis and probably a surplus of extraneous material to give the article a sense of validity. I am tending to think it should go as well. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Check out what happened to Russian pederasty. Some "In Russia..." joke should be appropriate here. Pcap ping  21:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The French wiki article on Pederasty is somewhat superior to the English one: it manages for instance to make that distinction between the institutionalized and casual forms (like I indicated above): fr:Pédérastie and fr:Pédérastie. The French Wikipedia has a separate article for the history of the word too fr:Histoire du mot pédérastie, although a little bit too much of that permeates their main article. (I'm fully aware that the French use of the word need not coincide with the English one, but their usage of the word also suffered significant changes during the past few centuries.)

By the way, check out where Haiduc has moved. Thankfully (and predictably) most of the French wiki article was not written by him though. Also, check out this announcement: fr:Discussion:Pédérastie referring to his ban here: "an overdose of puritanism and imbecility by the American right wing, without a doubt". I predict a mushy, mushy future for the French wiki article. Pcap ping  22:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Dang, I wish I'd learnt more modern languages at school... qu'elle domage Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Or paid more attention – quel dommage!  pablo hablo. 23:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Halls of power
You used to walk amongst them. ;-)

I want to get myself a cool/short username, and the last time I tried (User:1 was used on some non-English pedia), I was denied. Would you point me in the direction of a bureaucrat who would help me find a cool/short username? Some short names like User:8 were just socks, so I'm sure if they knew what to look for, they could find me one that's easily usurpable. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Gosh - I've not done much with this sorta thing. My guess would be to look at a list of users and see what hasn't been taken - or if one has, usurp a long-departed user or sock. Now where is the list of users....Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick reply. If I figure it out, I'll tell you so you can pick and easy one if you ever want to. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd start here - find one you like and see what has happened to it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Very cool. I thought you'd know something about it, and you do.  Now, how do I use that list?  In computer science, we read "!" as "bang".  I guess "!!" would be "bang bang", and so on.  The first line is "! (Created on December 4, 2004 at 11:39)".  I would love to have that one.  Unfortunately "! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! HAGGEⓇ?1" is already taken (just kidding).
 * Anyways, it looks like the alphabet starts with various punctuation marks. I can go to where I want in the numbers, and then what do you recommend I do?  The problem is that it may have not been used on the English Wikipedia, but the rules as I understand them are: "If someone has logged in on any of the Wikimedia project's wikis with this username, then it's verboten".
 * So, do you have an idea of what the next step I should take is? I feel bad asking you this, because it's a weird technical question, and weird technical answers are valuable things.  But, you're the only user who's still around who I think actually knows enough to answer this type of question.  Thanks again. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The way you could do it then is start by looking for the username you want - eg User:ABC and see if it has any contributions (even if a redlink) - and go from there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you go to the user page of a non-existent username you get a message in red that says "User account "xxx" is not registered". I don't know if that solves the Unified Login problem, of course.  You might find something useful at Changing username/SUL and Changing username/Usurpations; those might also be good places to ask questions.  Guettarda (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Map
Yes, I know it looks like shit. I'll recomposite with better colours but first some questions: Hesperian 14:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Is the boundary between pumilio and sphaerocarpa about right? This is a difficult one because the Florabase map for var. pumilio does not match the northern range for var. sphaerocarpa, as it should. Presumably this is because the herbarium still has many pumilio specimens in their database still labelled as sphaerocarpa. Is it safe, and appropriate, to ignore the Florabase map for var. pumilio, and instead manually split the distribution shown in the var. sphaerocarpa map?
 * 2) How to handle the overlap between var. sphaerocarpa and var. caesia? (It came out black here) I don't know how to crosshatch the overlap, but I could give it its own colour—something that implies overlap, such as orange between red and yellow—or I could pull back the distributions so that they don't overlap any more.
 * 3) Any suggestions re: colours? I only chose primary colours because I am extremely lazy.
 * 4) Sorry to ignore the background map you put forward. Again it is laziness. I've scripted part of the process to work with the IBRA map, and adjusting the script will require co-registering against the other map, which will take a little while to get right. As soon as I get around to doing that, I'll update the script and start producing maps against that background.


 * I hope you'll excuse a WP:TPW interjecting, but it's worth noting that more than 1 in 20 readers are likely to be red-green colour blind, and 1 in 100 are blue-yellow colour blind. There's information at Color blindness, especially the section Design implications of color blindness. I'd strongly recommend using colours that have different lightness, so that there is sufficient contrast on a grey scale. We should also note that our pages may be printed out on a monochrome printer. Hatching has real advantages if you don't need more than 4 options (vertical, horizontal, two diagonals), and also shows overlaps much more clearly. I do recognise that it's harder to set up on a graphic art program, but there are numerous editors with those skills who may be able to help you – Graphic Lab is a good starting point. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Different lightness is a very good idea. I spoke to Alex George the other day and the range of pumilio is essentially all points north of Chittering so the range of pumilio should extend down a little. The article where pumilio is described discusses the range (which can be used to reference it). I'd use red for pumilio and orange for sphaerocarpa - maybe a horizontally striped area for the overlap (?) But the colours are all of different shades AFAICT and the dark for the overlap is pretty distinctive..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've fixed the pumilio/sphaerocarpa split, and adjusted the colours. They still ain't pretty, but "different lightness" is a very heavy constraint. Now the overall saturation steps up evenly through black (0%), green (17%), yellow (33%), red (50%), orange (67%), cyan (83%), and white (100%). Overlaps are excluded from this: I just took whatever ImageMagick gave me when I composited. Beggars can't be choosers. Unless you have some minor tweaks to suggest, you're going to have to accept this version until I feel inspired to co-register to that other background image (or you find someone else to have a crack at it). Hesperian 13:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. you may have to purge your cache to see the new version. Hesperian 13:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That'll do nicely - we can tell what is found where and if someone at FAC wants to make another that would be great. My request attracted exactly zero responses at the Graphic workshop. Okay, getting ready for FAC...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a quick attempt at showing how it looks hatched – really needs to be done as layers, so the hatching blends. Fine at full resolution, poorer at thumbnail. The scale of the hatching is always a trade-off between detail and resolution, so usually has to be optimised for a particular size. I'd say stick with the one you've got. --RexxS (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Ping
You've got email. 92.9.187.210 (talk) 02:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Just curious
Does you protection mean that Malleus cannot edit his own talk page? Or does the protection exempt him. Just trying to figure out how things work. Kindest regards, — mattisse (Talk) 03:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, didn't think of that. I don't think he can edit it either...but he can edit elsewhere of course. I think I can safely say that the chances of anyone arguing on that page of convincing anyone else of anything are <0.0000000000000000001% and hence a colossal waste of time. Everyone just needed to take a walk. I thought this way was more constructive than other means of closing the argy-bargy down such as blocking or whatever. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I agree with that statement. An enormous waste of energy. Regards, — mattisse (Talk) 03:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm beging to hate this website....-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  03:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * An unfortunate lesson: it's not this website. It's people. It's not even the people on this website. Go anywhere else and you will find the same. It's what people do to each other everywhere. So find something that makes you happy and go enjoy it when the reality gets too much to bear. --Moni3 (talk) 03:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's this site. about 70% of the people I meet in RL like me, while about 95% of the people I meet here, have an issue with me. I'm getting really tired of idiots like Halfshadow antagonizeing me and makeing fun of my bad spelling skills, and plain asses like Fred the oyster insulting my age group. And yet people always tell me, "You need to be the bigger person. grow up!" Well then why the @#$% is Halfshadow doing the things he does? He seems to act half my age! WTH did I EVER do to ANY of these people?!? Sorry for the cussing but I'm sick and tired of this.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  03:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * sigh - Coldplay Expert - if you are finding lots of arguments, it could be that you are unconsciously seeking them out. Remember it takes two tango. If you are finding folks taking you to task with your spelling, attach a spellchecker to your text as you type. There are plenty of places to edit and avoid hastle - many many articles, and keep away from the message boards. I'd write more but am in the middle of about five different things as we speak. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * but that's the thing. I don't start this. People come up to me and provoke me to the point of explodeing. I'm only human. Here's a story, a few kids keep on pokeing a snake with a stick, it bites them. But then the kids run off and get an adult to go and shoot the snake. The snake dies even though it was the kid's fault for provokeing it in the first place. Now I'm sure that you are smart enoght to fill in the blanks and know who's who in that story. -- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  04:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Take a deep breath and start from scratch. I haven't the time to review this, but have seen bits and pieces of argy-bargy about the place. Seriously. Good luck. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "start from scratch"?-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  04:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Look forward, not back and start afresh. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're not limited to responding exponentially, or even in kind. Find the awesome power in raising your eyebrows and saying to yourself, "Whatever, douchebag. You crazyass motherfucker, I'm not even going to join your twisted dance." And wander away to amuse yourself, to do something you enjoy. You can use less or more swearing. It's up to you. The winner is the one who's enjoying himself and being productive, not wrought up in being angry and vindictive. --Moni3 (talk) 13:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll be sure to keep that in mind.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  20:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

question on definition of consensus
I need to ask a senior Wikipedia member a question. I got your name from Wikicup, which I am also a participant. I first wrote to another person on that list but he has stopped editing.

The issue that brought issue that brings up the question is this: In the Barack Obama article, I started a section discussing the Political Positions section. I raised several issues, like what positions to select (let the politician's campaign decide / use what issues they talk about or use what the news talks about?), what time point to use, what to do if positions change, etc. Because of the difficulty in answering these questions, I suggested to eliminate the section. Later, I suggested that we have a brief summary of the man's 2008 election positions and have a 2012 sub-section later. We just can't have his current positions because that would be allowing a candidate to use Wikipedia as advertising. I have not suggestion what should be added or removed, just how to handle this section.

Nobody has violently come out in support of keeping, but there is some mention of keep. There is more mention of trimming it. But, to be fair, no consensus either way, including no consensus to keep. If there is no consensus to keep, is that a delete?

I seek not to argue but to see an opinion on what consensus is. The WP:Consensus gives no guidance on no consensus. The WP:No consensus is just an essay, unlike WP:Consensus. It gives not enough guidance because it says that no consensus does not mean that the status quo stays.

What is your opinion on consensus in general? Should we follow this:

1. AFD - no consensus - default to keep 2. major fact in article - no consensus - default mostly the facts that all agree are true and the most neutral, even if bland, version 3. minor fact in article - no consensus - default to not use it 4. sections - no consensus - no default, keep fighting (can't think of a good default since sections can be good or bad)

These are just ideas and written with no specific article in mind. Please provide at least a little advice. JB50000 (talk) 05:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, my advice - the more structure the better, even if it seems you're being obsessive about structure (e.g. support/oppose/comment sections for every segment of text in question), one needs to avoid discussions becoming walls of text whereever possible. I tried something like this at Talk:Ghost for ghost but got distracted elsewhere (I really needed to do some reading for that article that I never got round to).. Furthermore, discuss every segment of text separately - subject matter/sentences/however you want to split it. If you give it enough structure, you'll get somewhere. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Copy editing
Since you've done such an amazing job in the past, I'd just like to see if you might be able to find time to help copy edit two articles. I just nominated Gray Mouse Lemur for FAC, and Illegal logging in Madagascar (which will probably need the most work) was published a couple nights ago, is up for GAC, and is planned to go straight for FAC. If you don't have time, that's cool. I can always dust off my budding copy editing skills and take a crack at it. Hope all is well with you! –  VisionHolder  «  talk  »  15:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Will have a look, probably later today. Good to see you back around. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Whenever you get a chance, that would be great. BTW, I just passed Banksia acanthopoda‎ after making a few relatively minor changes.  I hope you approve.  Anyway, good job!  –   VisionHolder  «  talk  »  17:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Please tap Jack Merridew on the wrist again
No surprise here, see: User:Jack Merridew

Jack is bullying cool cat again. I come to you because you at least don't support Merridew's behavior like his other mentors and arbcom members who share his same wikipedia views. Granted, you don't do anything about his behavior except repeatedly weakly warn him, but at least you give him some token hand slap.

I know I am playing into Jack's game by commenting here. In fact, maybe I should just let it be, when Jack Merridew does not get a reaction from his bullying, Jack simply increases the bullying more. Let him dig a deeper hole that even "friend" accounts Lar and Jossi can't get him out of. (Jack's coding says "for Josette" possibly some offwiki conversation they had). Ah well, after a year of this constant repeated behavior, I don't have the patience.

I will alert Cool Cat, as Merridew wants me too. Give Jack his craved for reaction.

Should he keep the Arbcom ruling on his talk page? Ironically, he deleted the arbcom notice on his user page to replace it with the cool cat baiting. He probably got a sympathetic arbcom member to allow him to remove it.

As the Jack Merridew and BLP drama has clearly shown our rules are only selectively enforced. If you have sympathetic views which Jimbo and the arbcom share, any behavior will be forgiven.

Jack, when you respond here, this is sincere, why do you continue to bully people? Do you even know why you do it? What satisfaction does it give you? I never understood the bullies in high school, and I don't understand your behavior here. I can imagine you, Lar, and Jossi mocking your victims offwiki, what longterm satisfaction does this give to you? Is this all a game too you Jack? Emotionally upsetting editors, real people, with real lives?

Please no "I only have the best interest of wikipedia in mind" responses. Baiting and bullying is definitely not in the best interest of wikipedia. Okip (formerly Ikip) 18:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Does your wife know you have a new account and password?Bali ultimate (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably not; won't she be pissed. ;) Jack Merridew 19:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * @kip: What the fuck? I am not required to keep the motion posted on my userpage; that was my idea and it's still available on my history page, which is linked (and it links to the official copy;). I'm listing all my accounts on my userpage, including User:Note to Cool Cat; whup, whup. It's called transparency. The 'for Josette' bit is in reference to the use of the image being used on her user page and one discussed on talk:horse. I fully understand your behavior, 'Okip' you are relentlessly seeking sanctions re myself and you assume bad faith *daily*. Jack Merridew 19:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * @Ikip - why in the world would you have Jack Merridew's user page on your new watchlist? Have you tried disengaging? That said, I see nothing wrong with his userpage. Hipocrite (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

What does user:Jossi have to do with this? Confused there. ++Lar: t/c 19:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

@Okip - You may not know but I have been an editor on Wikipedia since 2006, long before I meet User:Jack Merridew. I don't appreciate being referred to as "Jack's friend" or "Lar's wife". While both of these facts are true I find it derogatory and it shows a prejudice against me (possibly because I'm a woman?) which I don't deserve. I am an editor just like everyone else here and my contributions to article space prove that. I now see you have started to refer to me as Jossi? Is this another form of insult? I have never resorted to this sort of "name calling" and would appreciate being referred to only by my user name. Thank you. - Josette (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Fred
I blued that redlink, Fred Lullfitz. I reckon you'd have lots to add there... if it weren't all still packed in boxes. ;-) Add it to your long list of things to do. Hesperian 12:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Gmail about lead of the sesselis SatuSuro 23:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Got it - yeah I can fix that :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Good I am sure there is something like a good ref on the issue but the one liners like florabase say nothing about disturbed ground just the geological distribution which is deceptive when you think about it - ... I dont know how you keep up with all the diff threads in your wp existence mate - its like vienese public transport - run down by a tram trying to get to the underground SatuSuro 00:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

MZMcBride breaching experiment with BLPs
Wikidemon brought this up,

Which got me thinking, who was the sockpuppet who performed this "breaching experiment".

Was an editor going around and defaming living people so MZMcBride and his "BLP offwiki forum dedicated to tightening up BLP practices" could create, then claim an emergency?

As I close, or am I completely off-base? The sockpuppets name would be helpful, so I can see for myself. Okip BLP Contest 19:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought they had been anon IPs on the list of articles, but I admit I haven't followed it closely. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I will ask Durova. Thanks Casliber. The more I learn about this whole situation, the more shocked I am. Okip BLP Contest 20:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2/Evidence gives a flavour of the edits made and the socks making them. Not particularly harmful to the article subjects, but embarrassing had they been left for a length of time. Unnecessary drama, imho. --RexxS (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks like they all were regular sockpuppet accounts, not anon accounts. Unless you are aware of other anon accounts.

Why does the arbitration committee conceal the identity of the editor in their final decision when The Wikipedia Signpost stated the name?

Are you distancing yourself from me Casliber? I know you have gotten a lot of heat for associating with me and agreeing with some of the things I say, and that takes a lot of bravery and strong convictions in the face of harsh criticism, I note, for example, that WR has criticized you asking for my help. Okip BLP Contest 19:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I saw that. Not sure why they didn't use the name (just the initial) - I am a bit burnt out from wading through swathes of text on the issue. I do also think about concentrating on winnable battles and/or ones where consensus can be worked towards. Improving inline referencing is a pretty basic change which has to happen across the 'pedia, so making it a prerequisite of removing a PROD is a no brainer for me. I think it should be the rule for all prods really. I generally have a priority of things I do here - the highest being those things that I enjoy, followed by less enjoyable pastimes. My time has been more limited than usual the past week or so. Plus there are some other issues which have taken time and energy. I think you're brave doing what you do, and someone definitely needs to play devil's advocate. Ultimately a list of deleted material is very prudent and makes me worry about it less. I really don't give a flying metaphor what anyone thinks of who I associate with, so am not fussed about that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * @Ikip, On the point of naming Mr K, it originated with Brad. Cool Hand Luke stated here: "'K' complains when his name is invoked by strangers and/or pseudonyms who attack him. I tend to respect his apparent wishes on this matter." I can only assume the writer of the Signpost didn't share the same sensibilities. --RexxS (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you RexxS for that insight. Strange.
 * It seems like everyone has gotten sick of RFC.
 * I really smiled at your comments because I can relate to them. It seems like the more time I spend here, the less enjoyable it is ;) I stopped uploading files about a year and a half ago, because they were getting deleted, after a bully deleted 1800's photos. I stopped writing articles, what I really love, because they were getting deleted. All I do now is policy which is not fun, I am in the minority with my views, and I almost always lose :)
 * Thank you again Casliber. I see you as an editor who sees the coming iceburg, knows the ship will sink, but knows he can do nothing to change the minds of the crew to change direction, so he is trying to savor the time he has left. Okip BLP Contest 01:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, when I get wikistress, I forget about the fate of the Titanic and policy-wonkery, and do some 'manual labour'. I've happily spent time just going through and checking refs to help the FA-Team at Coffee; yesterday, I spent hours at Wikisource, just turning an OCR version of a page into text. It's very, very tiny in the scheme of things, but there's still a sense of satisfaction. I can't guarantee it would work for you, but why not give it a go? Best --RexxS (talk) 12:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to concur - have a look at what I have been doing. Furthermore, when one moves away from trench warfare, alot of editors with whom I have clashed heads become alot more reasonable (or maybe it is me... :)) and collaborative. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Mermaid article
What, Richard Dawkins isn't reverting vandalism to it any more? Andjam (talk) 11:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hehehe, how fortean :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Davidson
Either you forgot about it, or you're very generous on time, but I finally noticed it (when I'm imperatively away you should generally e-mail me :) ) and am working on it.

Oh, and, hai o/ Res Mar 02:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Me, I'm pretty laid back with these things generally and happy to cut a bit of slack. Have at it and I'll check how you go. I generally rty to give articles a bit of a shove towards FAC as I go. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

List
Hello ;) I was wondering, can you help me make that "lifetime list" for me? I would but I don;t really know where to star or what it sould look like or even what to inculde in it! I'm going to sleep now so I won't be able to respond until tomorrow. Thanks for the help!-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  02:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, you already have a start for GAs on your userpage. I just listed stuff on my user page and ranked them - ones I've worked on "quite a bit" etc. For featured material, tehre is also List of Wikipedians by featured list nominations and List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations. I also have a 'to-do' section to remind me on stuff to get back to. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. I'll add one of those when I get an FA :)-- Coldplay Expért <sup style="color:#DC143C;">Let's talk  13:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nah, you don't need to, a bot does it automatically My problem is that my To-Do list gets longer and longer...Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Sess
Well done,on the GA SatuSuro 15:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hehehe, thx :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Puffin
I've done little on this recently, so I'm not too fussed about taking it to GAN myself. I will if nobody else wants to take it on, but I have other priorities like getting Delichon to FA, so that the GT can become an FT, and I'm interested in tweaking Great Tit (!) so Puffin may have to wait a while <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  15:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Good points all. Onward to FT and some inadvertent lewdity :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:List of African-American Republicans discussion on inclusion criteria post-AfD
Hi Casliber. I'm leaving you this message because you commented at Articles for deletion/List of African-American Republicans. There appears to have been consensus to clarify the scope of the list. I've started a discussion on the topic at Talk:List of African-American Republicans and would welcome any input you have. Shadowjams (talk) 06:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, btw!

 * nice job, what is that 50 barnstars now :) Okip  03:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Zen of CSS Design
This would be an excellent DYK. I kinda feel like I started the article on Africa, as Jimmy put it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I had never heard of this book. Will look. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have any idea about reliable sources on this one? I looked but nothing jumped up at me. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is *the* book that woke professional web designers up to what is now seen as the modern philosophy of web design. Pretty much all the design philosophy books since have acknowledged this. Andy Clarke'sbad link; a footballer Transcending CSS (sigh; Amazon) is the next iteration of this approach (and Molly co-authored this one, too).
 * It is arguable that the site it is about — www.csszengarden.com — is what was so influential, but the book is what explained it all to many.


 * An example; this site has 'skins' that change the look of things. This is done by switching the CSS used; the site spits the same code. Look at the main link I gave in the above paragraph and then see these:


 * http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile=019/019.css
 * http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile=028/028.css
 * http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile=069/069.css
 * (019 is intended to scroll horizontally; 028 is an homage to this classic; 069 uses a ragged border around the viewport and note Buddha along the left right and the browser icons on the cliff face)


 * The markup in each of the above is identical, yet the designs are totally different (and note that there are hundreds of great designs and a thousand others). They simply invoke a different style sheet that in turn pulls-in different imagery. If you view source on any of those pages, you will see the exact same markup. All modern sites are now doing this, but this site was the one that drove a stake in the ground and said: "See? Build the web this way." And we did. Amongst web designers, this is the holy bible. There are thousands of books that are basically techie books about nuts and bolts, but there are few that moved the whole industry to a new methodology.


 * You should also be sure to see this poor stub: CSS Zen Garden, which is about the site itself. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow, I like this one (actually I am sure Malleus and Ealdgyth would like them more :) - is this compatible with wiki code or only html? Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd not ever looked at that one. In the general sense, yes, this is compatible with teh wiki. We're already doing it; go visit preferences and pick another skin. We have fairly boring alt stylesheets. The thing I would do with enhanced access  would be stuff like this. See:
 * s:User:Jack Merridew/roman or edit
 * Ignore the text; it's just some list that was handy. Note that it's an ordered-list with '#' at the beginning of each line, yet the list is done with Roman numerals. That page has a div-element wrapped around the content, but that's just a specific method of being able to target the list; there are others that would allow less html-snot in the wiki-text. It's not rocket-science; the code to allow the roman numerals on Wikisource is:

<poem style="margin-left: 12em; font-family: monospace;"> div.divRomanOL ol { list-style-type: upper-roman; } div.divRomanOL-lower ol { list-style-type: lower-roman; }
 * (the second is for lowercase roman and there are others for things like Alpha, Greek…)
 * You're used to things like class="wikitable"; my example above is done with class="divRomanOL". Where do things like "wikitable" come from? CSS. There are a lot of things that could be done to MediaWiki:Common.css and the others, like main.css, which could use work (that's not in the MediaWiki namespace as mere admins are not allowed to edit it). Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Fascinating - I imagine doing some skin for Illuminated Letters, so the default for the first letter of any paragraph defaults to an Illuminated Letter alphabet - that'd be cool....Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Fahrner Image Replacement, which is used extensively on www.csszengarden.com. For wiki use, I doubt it would be a skin (but I suppose it could be). Would you really want this on everything? For some articles, though, a graphic could replace the initial character. One way would be a template, say ;).  would ditch the 'A' and replace it with an image out of some 16<sup style="vertical-align: 0.6em; font-size: 65%;">th century manuscript. using the same techniques as the drop-cap templates, only plus a background image. An aside; read My Name Is Red, by Orhan Pamuk.
 * See s:Page:The Marriage of Heaven and Hell - copy D.djvu/2 and note the "¶", which is a character in my quotes but are images of a character on the Wikisource page. This is an editing aid, it just indicates where the true paragraphs are. It is implemented with just a few lines of CSS that target paragraphs in the ws:Page namespace. The point is that everything gets its appearance from CSS.
 * And our book, above, influenced the entire web to reincarnate itself as CSS-based. Five years ago, browsers didn't support CSS well, and designers didn't get it, anyway. This has all changed; even Microsoft's balky browser now supports most CSS. There's even a new pseudo-attribute for CSS selectors <tt>first-letter</tt> that would be very useful for the trick you're talking of (this is one thing MS still has rather wrong). Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I found this, but it's more about the site and CSS: Jack Merridew 06:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.alistapart.com/articles/cssatten/

Green Pygmy Goose
Problem at DYK. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 04:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * ok. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

GA
That's fine. Joe Chill (talk) 07:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have been working on expanding it. I added a medicinal section and I found out that the mushroom was in Guinness World Records 2009. Joe Chill (talk) 14:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

CSD
Hi, thanks for your insights to my question to you at CSD. I'm going to move the location of the discussion, for reasons I just explained at Coren's talk page, and I'll continue the discussion after that. I just felt I should leave you and Coren notes to explain why I'm moving it. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, no problem. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sydney meetup
It's been a while since the wiki folk of Sydney had the chance to meetup - and there's quite a lot going on. If you've never been to a meetup before, you're especially welcome, and if you're an old hand, then please do make an effort to touch base :-) You can sign up here, or drop a note on my talk page if you have any questions or anything - hope to see you there! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Avoiding clutter
You said at the ongoing RfC on the CDA proposal: "Okay, is arbcom able to judge on 'non-brightline' cases? Yes I believe so and I'd say that to me it seemed easier to review and desysop an admin than ban an editor for a significant hsitory of -just-under-the-radar behaviour."

I say that the issue isn't just banning but also blocking. I have not forgotten, nor will I ever forget, being blocked for using the word "sycophantic". The administrator who judged that to be a "personal attack" is still active, which I find deeply objectionable on many different levels. There is no realistic way to rein in the marginally incompetent administrators, no matter how many times the deception is repeated that current processes are adequate. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * When was that??? I must have missed that one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Last year, 10th of June. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, I remember that now (sigh) - was there discussion afterwards? Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Not that I recall. What was there to discuss? I get blocked for a week and the administrator walks away untarnished. The system stinks. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Shepton Mallet GA review
I think we've done all we can on the points you raised regarding Shepton Mallet, so could you have another look please? Thanks Dmvward (talk) 13:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Green Pygmy Goose

 * What a nice little duck! Strange that there's no mention of why this is called a pygmy goose when it's quite clearly a duck. As the the saying doesn't go: if it doesn't look like a goose, doesn't swim like a goose and doesn't honk like a goose, then perhaps it could be a duck? Any clarification on this? Talking of which, the main article goose could probably do with a bit of work if any WikiProject Birders fancy a stab!Mind you this is a recommendation coming from a guy who hasn't got around to disentangling the athletics and track and field concepts yet! Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) <sup style="color:#0B7C08;">Join WikiProject Athletics!  00:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I was wondering that myself, teh duck vs goose thingy. Did some reading but alot of knowledge is really up in the air...Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Observing this conversation, I just did a little work upon Goose. I'd like to create a redirect Silly goose to this section but find that this is currently protected.  Please can you unprotect this. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You reckon? Okay. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 February newsletter
Round one is over, and round two has begun! Congratulations to the 64 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our first round. A special well done goes to, our round one winner (1010 points), and to and , who were second and third respectively (640 points/605 points). Sasata was awarded the most points for both good articles (300 points) and featured articles (600 points), and TonyTheTiger was awarded the most for featured topics (225 points), while Hunter Kahn claimed the most for good topics (70). claimed the most featured lists (240 points) and featured pictures (35 points), claimed the most for Did you know? entries (490 points),  claimed the most for featured sounds (70 points) and  claimed the most for In the news entries (40 points). No one claimed a featured portal or valued picture.

Credits awarded after the end of round one but before round two may be claimed in round two, but remember the rule that content must have been worked on in some significant way during 2010 by you for you to claim points. The groups for round two will be placed up shortly, and the submissions' pages will be blanked. This round will continue until 28 April, when the top two users from each group, as well as 16 wildcards, will progress to round three. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup; thank you to all doing this last round, and particularly to those helping at WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Where to?
Any thoughts on where to go with Banksia next? I was thinking of banging my head against Banksia coccinea for a while. Want to get involved in that? Other ideas: I still have an Isostylis FT in my sights, and it is high time we nailed one of the Prostratae. Hesperian 11:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have been expanding Banksia laevigata subsp. laevigata to get to a 5x expansion for DYK as I thought the tennis ball name was funny. My grafted one is growing slowly too :) Coccinea sounds good too - actually that one sounds like a good FA one, lots of cut flower industry, waite cultivars, difficulty in growing and unusual taxonomic history to boot. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that was my thinking. Hesperian 23:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

White Dwarf
All done. ;) BOZ (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

new category FYI
only one person so far! Earlypsychosis (talk) 07:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

 * Gee, thanks :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Christ myth theory peer review
Hi, I've recently submitted the Christ myth theory article for peer review. Given your interests listed on the PR volunteers page and your experience, I think your comments could be very helpful here. Thank you. Eugene (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Fluffing up of birds
Hi there- I know you know your birds, and we have a strange situation on a FPC-. The image in question shows the species in a particularly fluffy state, and one user noted that their pet of the same species does the same thing- basically, do we have an article anywhere on this behaviour? Myself and another user feel that this image would be an excellent illustration, but we are not overly keen on supporting the image in its current usage. J Milburn (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Lactarius deliciosus
High-importance edible species... whaddya say about a GA and FA? Quite a bit of info available, and I have the Hesler and Smith (1982) Lactarius monograph. I will start expanding soon. Sasata (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Good idea. Have eaten these a few times (very plentiful under introduced pines around Sydney, and contributed a few photos. Does the 1982 work clarify the similar species? Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The monograph has descriptions for 5 variants. Between that, the scientific literature, and another recent work that I will now be able to justify buying, I think we'll be able to sort it all out. Sasata (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * terrific. I have wondered which taxon is what (and I can figure out which one I have eaten too)...Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for help
I am will shortly be posting to WP:AN with the request below. Any support would be appreciated.

Request to WP:AN
"I would like to take the article History of logic to FA. I have already sought input from a number of contributors and have cleared up the issues raised (I am sure there are more).  I wrote nearly all of the article using different accounts, as follows:


 * User:Peter Damian (old)
 * User:HistorianofLogic
 * User:Logicist
 * User:Here today, gone tomorrow
 * User:Renamed user 4

I would like to continue this work but I am frustrated by the zealous activity of User:Fram who keeps making significant reverts, and blocking accounts wherever he suspects the work of a 'banned user'. (Fram claims s/he doesn't understand "the people who feel that content is more important than anything else").

Can I please be left in peace with the present account to complete this work. 'History of logic' is a flagship article for Wikipedia, and is an argument against those enemies who claim that nothing serious can ever be accomplished by the project". Logic Historian (talk) 09:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * facepalm - I think the best place is a Request for clemency at arbcom. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Your semi-protection of Biological warfare and other articles
Hello, could you please review your protection of Biological warfare? It appears to have been excessive. Thank you. 124.86.51.185 (talk) 03:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Erm, I am a bit worried about this. I have a better idea. Why not make an account? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks as though 124 believes this is an example of an article with "no real history of disruption". I would disagree with that. Firsfron of Ronchester  05:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Reworded, thank you. 124.86.51.185 (talk) 05:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Just to let you know that people are waiting for your reply here. Thank you. 122.25.254.86 (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for unprotecting. 124.86.53.166 (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I owe you a pint
Next time you are near Cork. Thanks for the archives, img etc. Ceoil  sláinte 08:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hopefully one day - I am well and truly earthbound for a while :( Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Patter of tiny feey? Or did somebody break your legs. Ceoil  sláinte 13:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec on me own feckin' talk page) Yeah, eight of them. I don't fancy 24 hours on a plane with a lively 2 year old (though we might have to at some stage this year) - Australia is so goddamn far from anywhere....Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well thats a good reason. So amybe in 2027, when they are all grown up. Remind me first though. Ceoil  sláinte 13:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Har, oh arse, it's nearly 1 am and I need to get up early. I hate Mondays...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Mass deletion
I found this pragmatic statement interesting. I'd say there's absolutely no reason why we should need mass deletion here. The bare-bones of a consensus are already threshed out. BLPPROD should gives us a way of preventing new BLPs being kept for too long without sourcing, and we review the backlog in three months to see if the current clear up is still going apace, with a target of ensuring it is cleared in 12 months. Preferably this can be done without any deletions whatsoever. I'd certainly be happy to support your idea of a list of articles deleted.

I'm wondering whether you'd be willing to stick your nose into the progress so far. We need pragmatic inclusionists at this point, who want [are willing] to see an agreement of something like the above. The problem at the moment is we've got people who are not accepting the directions things are headed, and (on the other hand) people like me, whose involvement is probably winding them up. I'd be willing to step away, if I felt someone like yourself might help see the thing through. When the debate goes on too long, the moderates lose interest and the dead horses start getting flogged. The biggest danger here is inertia again. Wikipedia talk:Sticky Prod workshop if you are interested.--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I was just thinking how just undeleting and sourcing was ultimately alot easier than banging heads at AfD. I'll take a look. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Award
Thanks for that :). I've put a notice on the talk page about the last couple - please let me know there if you'd like me to remove them if sources aren't found. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Meh. Give it a bit of time - I haven't looked at the names so if they sound plausible maybe a few weeks (??) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah I missed your reply :o. I've given it a week - but apart from William C Patrick where I've found a source they are still on the talk page. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hammond
I noticed that. I did some clean-up on it in the past two months but given the events of Featured article candidates/Ian Meckiff/archive1. I'm not sure whether I'll improve the article with my edits and I'm not noticiing any change in my writing style. Given that Brianboulton did the PR, and has never been shy of stopping any cricket FAC (since 2009 every cricket writer who submitted to FAC has gotten at least one oppose from him), I'm not sure why he wouldn't have bothered to bite if he felt it necessary. Still, the guys at WP:CRIC never pipe up on FACs anymore for whatever reason. BB knows a lot about English cricket content as well and isn't afraid of commenting on a lot of the facts either, so I was tempted to just vote support....Anyway, it's up to you to push WP:AUS to 200 by Anzac Day, everything seems to have stalled at WP:AWNB/A  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  04:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strange; Brian and Tony usually bite but they didn't and only MF did it, finally. Tony would usually point out the with noun verbings as well as the same noun/verb being used twice in the same/consec sentences  YellowMonkey   ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  00:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Your indefinite semi-protection of List of people indicted by the International Criminal Court
Hello. Could you please reconsider your protection of List of people indicted by the International Criminal Court? It seems to have been excessive. Thank you. 124.86.53.166 (talk) 14:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll do that as it is referenced. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Could you please also review other semi-protections you have granted in the past under similar circumstances? 114.148.196.240 (talk) 14:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you tell me which ones specifically you're interested in? Also, it looks like your IP keeps changing - are you the same person as above? If you make an account, it can help orientate me as who I am talking to. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's OK, I can point each to your attention in this talk page. I am the same person who wrote this comment, if that helps. Thanks. 114.148.196.240 (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Ben Bulben/GA1
Hey, just poking you about this GA review. Looks like a lot of work was done a month ago, but nothing since, so it's definitely had time to be fixed. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I left a message on the nominator's page. I see she is still active so will either see improving or failing in the next day or two. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Your semi-protection of Wave Rock
Hello. Your semi-protection of Wave Rock seems to have been excessive. Could you please reconsider? Thank you. 114.148.196.240 (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If circumstances change and other editors take an interest in it then maybe. Unfortunately it was one where vandalism from different IPs happened and went unreverted, until I had to go back and clean up. Given that, this is a less labour-intensive way of ensuring vandalism does not remain. If someone wishes to edit the article and asks me on the talkpage, I'll be happy to oblige. Are you interested in editing the article yourself? Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * When asked about your protections, you sometimes raise points that do not seem to be relevant to our protection policy and guidelines. Example of irrelevant points are:


 * Whether the article is referenced or not
 * Whether the person requesting unprotection has an account
 * Why they don't create an account
 * Whether they want to edit that article
 * Whether they are going to watch that article
 * Whether they ask nicely - although I agree that requests should always be polite


 * I think we should focus more on other aspects of the protection being reviewed. Aspects that, in my opinion, are much more relevant to the above-referenced policy. For example:


 * How many disruptive edits from non-auto-confirmed were there in the recent past of the article?
 * Were these episodes "heavy and persistent"? To get an idea of what other admins mean by this, I invite you to take a look at WP:RFP and study which requests are being granted (and with what duration), and which were denied because there is "not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection".
 * Is the article a BLP?
 * Could the disrupting editors have been warned/blocked instead?


 * Thank you. 114.148.196.240 (talk) 12:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

O-kay then. (a) asking whether you are going to edit the account is not irrelevant, as by editing it it then means you are going to watch it. (b) re asking nicely, i was being somewhat humorous, but on a more serious note, it means I am being responsive. Indefinite does not mean infinite, and in fact I prefer the idea of the time length being irrelevant as long as someone is watching once it is being unprotected, be it after 5 days, 5 months or 5 years, rather than some arbitrary time of, say, 6 months where there is no notification or whatever. (c) there has been a huge amount of discussion about referencing with unreferenced BLPs lately. The take-home message is that vandal edits are alot easier to spot in an article which already contains a substantial proportion of its material as supported by inline referencing. Hence a laxer attitude in protecting is feasible. (d) watching for reversion is critical - two edits by successive IPs often throws vandal-reverters. Hence my asking whether someone is going to watch or not. This is about pragmatism. (e) regarding you - your IP changes - I have no idea who I am talking to. Even a throwaway pseudonym account is more useful. These anonymous comments are thus not accountable to anyone or anything. You come and comment on pages you have no interest in editing but are trying to prove some point or other. If you are not a contributor then what are you trying to accomplish here wrestling with my interpretation of policy? How do I know you are well-intentioned? A few 'thankyous' dotted in your comments don't make up for some openness and accountability. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Cas, I'm happy to remove the protection and watchlist this. Let me know if you're happy with this. (via request at RPP). Ged  UK  13:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Ged.

Casliber, you ask, How do I know you are well-intentioned? - You don't know it, you assume it. It sounds like you would benefit from reading WP:HUMAN. 114.148.196.240 (talk) 13:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Sup! : )
Hey Cas, it's Spawn Man. Been a while I know - how are you doing. Just typing from university and have been here for hours in a storm so was really scraping the barrel on what to keep me from my boredom when I thought of catching up with all my old Wiki-friends. Haven't been to my user-page yet, hopefully it's still there lol. Hope you're well. Read you got into ArbCom, but I saw it didn't work out... You still have my email right? Send me a line sometime. : )

Cheers,

130.123.192.23 (talk) 05:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay. Hope things are going well for you :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, things are pretty good for me. A few hiccups now and then, but generally I'm happy. Take me up on the email offer - seriously - I do miss my Wikipedia friends. 130.123.192.23 (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Your indefinite semi-protection of John Laws
Hello. Could you please review your semi-protection of John Laws? It seems to have been excessive. Thank you. 114.146.155.236 (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you familiar with New South Wales and Australian radio announcers? There are reasons why semiprotection is prudent here. If you are specifically looking to improve the article then I will unprotect. I don't consider a few bluelinks as much of an improvement to the Wave Rock article. You intend doing more? Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * PS: Why does your IP keep changing? Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you elaborate on the only potentially relevant point please? Namely, "There are reasons why semiprotection is prudent here." Thank you. 123.218.154.242 (talk) 06:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you elaborate on my points? If you were familiar with some Australian identities, you might understand why semiprotection is a good idea. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey! Your IP changed again. why is that? Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As I said, your other points are irrelevant to whether this semi-protection was appropriate or not. If you disagree, please quote from the policy and guidelines what exactly makes you think that they are relevant.
 * I am simply asking on what grounds this protection was justified, because prima facie it looks like it was not.
 * I don't think that quizzing me back "guess why?" is a conducive way forward.
 * As a gesture, I will reply to one of your other questions. You ask, "Why does your IP keep changing?". I am unable to answer this technical question, although I would expect a WP admin to know. In any case, please keep in mind that if you are assuming that there is only one person behind the various requests for unprotection, you may be mistaken. 123.218.154.242 (talk) 08:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Simple question - do you know who John Laws is? Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not intend to answer this question unless you explain to me what parts of the policy and guidelines suggest that it is relevant to the assessment of the appropriateness of your indefinite semi-protection of this article.
 * I will, however, quote one of the various guidelines that this and other protections of yours seem to have overridden. "Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred". Considering that the last episode of vandalism by a non-autoconfirmed editor occurred 6 months before your protection, it remains unclear to me how this was appropriate. 123.218.154.242 (talk) 10:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This seems to me to be wikilawyering, which lacking an articulated intent to improve the encyclopedia is usually unhelpful.--Scott Mac (Doc) 10:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

123.218.154.242, our policies are not rules that bind us; they are statements of our consensus about how we ought to behave. Consensus on how we ought to behave can change, and sometimes there is a lag before written policy catches up with that. This seems to be what has happened here. In the last few months public opinion has shifted on the issue of our ethical responsibility towards the subjects of our biographies of living persons. There is now strong consensus that biographies of living persons may indeed be preemptively protected, and probably should be in the case of controversial persons. It is this consensus that really matters here, not what policy says. If it bothers you that our policies fail to capture this new consensus, I invite to you to start a discussion on the policy talk page, with a view to updating policy. Hesperian 10:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I know that policy is descriptive and not prescriptive, but surely this works the other way around. The way I see it, if your perception of consensus is so completely disaligned with the policy, the burden is on you to seek consensus to change it on the talk page. Alternatively, you are free to start an encyclopedia that only you and your friends can edit.
 * Until then, especially as an admin, I would expect you to comply, within reason, to it. I would also expect it not to be a problem to explain why you have taken an action that seems to be in stark contradiction with the current policy.
 * For another good measure of what current consensus actually is on this topic, I invite you to take a look at WP:RFP and study which requests are being granted (and with what duration), and which were denied because there is "not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection". 123.218.154.242 (talk) 11:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time assuming good faith with someone who moves IPs, says they may or may not be more than one person, is evasive unless discussing their demands for the page which they refuse to answer whether they are familiar with the subject or not, and feel that the terseness of their interaction is somehow completely mitigated by sprinkling some 'thankyous' about the place. As I said, if you knew the article, you'd have some understanding, and the policies I am following are clueful ones - our BLP policies. So as I said, this is one if you have a particular reason to improve the John Laws article (which I doubt you have), then I will happily unprotect and work with you, as I will with any article I protect. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at this, Cas. Firsfron of Ronchester  20:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd noticed that yeah...Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You say you are following policy. Can you please explain which ones? You refer to BLP, yet WP:BLP has this to say regarding protection: "Administrators who suspect malicious or biased editing, or believe that violating material may be re-added, may protect or semi-protect affected pages. However, it is generally more desirable in the medium and long term to obtain compliance with this policy by editors, so that the article may be kept open for editing." 118.7.223.163 (talk) 05:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What would you like to add to the John Laws article? You could have made an account have been merrily editing by now instead of arguing. Hey, your IP changed again..Note the word "generally" above - hence I make exceptions for vulnerable BLPs. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your fixation with who is requesting unprotection, and what they may or may not contribute to the article. I think that's misguided and short-sighted, as well as showing your lack of understanding of the rationale behind our policies and behind these unprotection requests.
 * What the requestor may or may not be able to contribute to this article simply pales in comparison to what millions of other potential editors might, not to mention the recruitment potential of unprotected articles.
 * This is worth rephrasing. We are not discussing whether or not I, or any specific user or IP, should be allowed to edit. As you observe, anyone who is really determined to do that can become auto-confirmed and edit (or vandalise) at will.
 * What we are debating here is whether stopping all those people from editing is a proportionate response to sporadic vandalism, the last episode of which occurred on this article 6 months before your indefinite protection.
 * I'm starting to suspect that your reverse-quizzing approach to explaining the reason behind this protection is due to your struggling to come up with one. 114.146.80.225 (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The onus is on the person wishing to add information to justify its inclusion, where a page is protected you need to provide specific information so that an admin can make the edit. You have/are being asked what you wish add or alter in the article. Until you are willing to discuss the changes you wish to make and provide reliable sources to support those change there is no reason to respond to your request. Gnangarra 15:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Your comment demonstrates that you have missed the whole point of the comment you are replying to. 114.146.145.83 (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

{od}Casliber, I saw this request on WP:RFUP and I wanted to get a better understanding of your protection rationale. To me, indefinite semi-protection of this article appears excessive. I don't see any persistent vandalism in the history of John Laws or egregious violations of the BLP policy that couldn't be handled more efficiently through adding the page to your watchlist. Let me know your reasoning. Cheers,  caknuck <sub style="color:black;">°  needs to be running more often  17:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and/or my watchlist, for that matter.  caknuck <sub style="color:black;">°  needs to be running more often  17:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, there are a number of BLPs that I have semiprotected in cases where there has been in the last varying degrees of speculation in tabloid press and elsewhere. As such I have predicted that there is a fair chance that a drive-by IP with a grudge or sense of mischief/justice/capriciousness/boredom/whatever will add material that could be damaging. Furthermore, google is caching versions that are in existence for mere minutes sometimes, hence a vandalised version can be in existence for mere minutes and google can pick up and splash about all over the place/mirror sites etc. We are embarking on Flagged Revisions sometime soon which is like a labour-intensive semiprotection of the whole lot as far as I can see, hence I am trying to adhere to 'anyone can edit' policy, with the proviso that an account must take responsibility for editing these articles. Cacknuck, I've done everything I can to balance open editing, accessibility with minimising harm to BLP subjects. If you want to unprotect John Laws then I won't stop you, as you are technically acting more within policy than I am, and I will remain watching it (so that makes two of us plus the recent changes patrollers) and try and work with you, but I am not on 24/7 and neither are you.


 * So to sum up, I don't think it is a good idea in the lack of a particular interested party seeking to edit, but I'll work with you if you take it upon yourself to unprotect. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't know about Laws being in the tabloids. (There isn't anything in the article indicating current controversy.) Considering that, protection does make more sense, so I'll defer to your expertise on things Australian. Thanks,  caknuck <sub style="color:black;">°  needs to be running more often  02:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for understanding - I bet if you think about some people you're familiar with in your neck of the woods you could think of some similar situations. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

AN thread
Our IP friend posted messges to a few of us looking for input on this, unaware of how canvassing is frowned upon. A couple of us directed him to WP:AN, where he has started a thread about this issue here. I'm not sure if he was aware of the need to notify involved editors, so I wanted to let you know on his behalf. Cheers! Resolute 23:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, yes, thank you, I didn't know about this. Apologies to Casliber, it makes sense and I will do it from now on. 123.225.192.66 (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Now archived here. 114.167.134.94 (talk) 13:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Now reopened here. 114.148.210.226 (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Unprotection request
Hi Casliber :) There's an unprotection request at WP:RFUP (Requests_for_page_protection) for a page you have semi-protected in October 2009. Could you please take a look? ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 12:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Notification
As you have commented on the issue previously (as evidenced at this page), this is to notify you that I've made a proposal here to formally community ban Mythdon and restrict the number of appeals he is entitled to. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Unprotection of Amélie Mauresmo
There seem to have been a lot of good IP edits at the time and little vandalism, additionally she's now retired. Can you reconsider this one? Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay. we'll both keep an eye on it then and monitor IP editing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI, unprotection was not logged, you've just removed the tag. Cenarium (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * D'oh! My bad. Fixed now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 17:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

know much about this?
Seems that Hesperian is onto something. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:ANI


 * ?? - I'll take a look...Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Also seems to me that you might know both parties. I'm off. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not unless they have edited under other names - you mean Granitethighs and Epipelagic? Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ya, those two, but I just was looking at their user pages and the boxes looked like your sort of stuff. I know you're acquainted with Hesperian. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Erythrina velutina
Do you know anything about leguminous trees? I just started Erythrina velutina, which is important to the Noronha skink, but can't get at some of the essential information: I found refs saying it is endemic to northeastern Brazil, but others say it occurs on the Galapagos Islands, or in the Caribbean, and there are apparently also a few in Brisbane. There's some good stuff that's not in the article yet (medicinal uses, for example, and some extract that makes mice and rats sleepy), but I'd like to get the botanical basics right before adding that. Ucucha 20:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ooh goody, there's a DYK for the picking. Will take a look later today. It is breakfast time here so I have to et off in a minute for a while. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, several good possibilities. Perhaps something like: ... that although all the native vertebrates of Fernando de Noronha eat from the tree Erythrina velutina without a problem, mice and rats get sleepy from it? No hurry. Ucucha 20:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not so good on plants outsdie Australia - Guettarda is the other person who can shed some light on it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, dropped him a note. Ucucha 20:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your kind words and support.Cgoodwin (talk) 00:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Hesperian
Casliber, can you reign in Hesperian. He is continuing to harrass Granitethighs in a truly obnoxious and gratuitous manner. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No need, Cas, I'm done. Clearly the article is the only thing amenable to improvement here. Hesperian 01:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup
Trying to lull the competition into a false sense of security? :) Guettarda (talk) 17:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Boletus edulis
Hello Casliber! Due to this change log ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boletus_edulis&diff=prev&oldid=181185974 ) You cited


 * Eiker A. (1990). "Commercial mushroom production in South Africa". Bulletin (Pretoria: Department of Agricultural Development) (418).

It is reference 49 in the current version now. I was looking very long for this bulletin, but I couldn't find it anywhere. Can You help me to find this bulletin, or do You know something exactlier about it?

I will thank You for Your help, Doc Taxon (talk) 04:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yikes! A blast from the past. I need to figure out where that is...Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, thank You very much! Please reply here in this user talk. Kind regards, Doc Taxon (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Return from a more or less 2 year long wikibreak
Hi Casliber. you may remember me from my involvement with several NZ bird articles such as Huia, Whitehead and Kakapo a few years back.

I don´t think I ended up contributing when Huia was being checked over for GA status. I apologize, i have a had a few health troubles in the past few years and that combined with full time work really kept me away from wikipedia for a long time. I am travelling in south america right now but return to NZ in a month and am already itching to rip into some kiwi avifauna articles. this morning i actually dreamt about getting kakariki to FA, haha, so you can see that even my subconscious is super keen for me to become an active wikipedian once more. I have noticed the excellent work done on a number of australian fairy wren articles and have subsequently determined (trolling through the histories) that you are the main culprit behind their improvement. I have learnt that I cannot make promises as to what I will do on wikipedia because things don´t always go as planned and life can throw up unexpected obstacles at random.. but what I will say is that i would ´´´like´´´ to push several NZ bird articles towards FA and ¨go for gold¨¨ as you suggested a couple of years back. I am looking for someone with lots of experience in this sort of area to give me advice as I set about my informative quest. You seem like an ideal candidate. It would just involve me asking the odd question from time to time here on your discussion page.. does this sound ok to you?

All the best, Cheers, Kotare (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Choice bro'! Yeah, happy to help out..lots folks will help with Kakariki for sure :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * sweet as! thanks man, greatly appreciated. all going as planned you will hear from me in around 6-8 weeks time once I get home and start research. thanks again, Kotare (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm back
Had this maddening urge to do a List of Rhodesian and Zimbabwean football champions since I got off the bleedin' plane! – Cliftonian the orangey bit 19:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hah, that's a DYK right there...Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

200 DYK Creation/Expansion Medal

 * Congratulations! Ucucha 21:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Congrats! Guettarda (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * +1. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool - thanks guys. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

A belated gasp. Well done :) — Aaroncrick  ( talk )   10:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC on changing the protection policy for schools
As you commented on YellowMonkey's statement on WP:AN I thought I should mention that the schools part of that is now an RfC. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 13:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Australia FARC
Hello from the moronic monkey again. A personal request for more hands on deck, as WP:AUS seems to be all very dispirited all of a sudden, and on a more general note, I suspect the average AWNBer sees FA/GA etc as increasingly irrelevant/pointless, although to be honest, I think my days might be numbered as well  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  06:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Your days might be numbered? Hope that's not what I think it's meaning! I'm on here less nowadays, though. — Aaroncrick  ( talk )   10:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding wikiprojects, they rise and fall in activity. When I started in 2006, WikiProject Dinosaurs was highly active, and has since died down into inactivity, though there has been a spurt recently, WikiProject Birds became active in 2007 and remains so, and after a long time WikiProject Fungi became active. Funny noticing all the whale Featured Articles, but WikiProject Cetaceans has been inactive since I can remember. I must admit I rarely look at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, but it'd be nice to save Australia. Why do you say that YM? Because of the recent semiprotection dustup? Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 March newsletter
We're half way through round two, and everything is running smoothly. leads overall with 650 points this round, and heads pool B. currently leads pool C, dubbed the "Group of Death", which has a only a single contestant yet to score this round (the fewest of any group), as well five contestants over 100 points (the most). With a month still to go, as well as 16 wildcard places, everything is still to play for. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Although unrelated to the WikiCup, April sees a Good Article Nominations backlog elimination drive, formulated as a friendly competition with small awards, as the Cup is. Several WikiCup contestants and judges have already signed up, but regular reviewers and those who hope to do more reviewing are more than welcome to join at the drive page. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) 22:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Temple Sinai (Oakland, California)
Thank you for your thorough copyedit and FAC review of Temple Sinai (Oakland, California). I did not have time to address all the points you made before the FAC closed, but I wanted you to know that I do still intend to improve the article based on them. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That's cool - good luck. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

WT:FA
Cas, could you please look at Wikipedia talk:Featured articles? It's tiring that people don't understand the function of that page. Most articles could be fit into multiple categories, and the constant desire to rearrange the page is just tiring. Could you look at the discussion, and let me know if there's a valid reason to move MDD from Health and medicine to psychology? I put all medical conditions that are diagnosed and treated by medical doctors in health and medicine; is MDD really different, as the editor claims? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 04:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Oreocallis
When next you're around, I have a question on the article. As it stands, your source suggests that Sleumer was the one who transferred O. grandiflora and O. mucronata to Oreocallis. This conflicts with my source (which says that Sleumer split O. mucronata from O. grandiflora) and with the fact that O. grandiflora is the type species (so must have been in the genus from the start). Guettarda (talk) 05:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * My source was rough and somewhat vague. If you trust yours go with it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I trust Pennington. Of course, I trusted him a lot more before I noticed this...but it looks like h the info comes from collector's notes. And it is, after all, just birds. Guettarda (talk) 05:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (That's why I look things like that up on Wikipedia - it's a good way to double-check species names that look like they may have been misspelt) Guettarda (talk) 05:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Suharto for peer review...
I just nominated Suharto for a peer review - you came highly recommended by SatuSuro and WittyLama, so if you're interested...

I will also try to nominate John Howard soon. By the way, are there any Sydney meetups in the pipeline? cheers --Merbabu (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry Merbabu - been away. Juggling lots. Will try to take a look soon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Fauna of Australia
Hi Cas. Had a run through this article, Australia's least densely cited FA. Do you know where to get the numbers for how many species there are? Because I checked a couple of books and they are all different  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  07:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look and see what I can do. I haven't laid eyes on the article to date. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As you can see I'm not at all natural with animals and didn't even noticed that someone had bumped off the whole mammals section on roos, wallabies, platypuses, echidna, dingos etc. The Encyc issue can be a bit sticky though, as a book that is simply called "Fauna of Australia" would also not be able to go into detail on each animal. I replied there, and hopefully the run of "No FA left behind" can continue, although more pre-emption is needed I think. I'm not waiting! Getting stuck into Canberra, echidna, and some frogs. Have I emailed you that excel list of the FA citation density? Although of course an article can still be highly sourced numerically but not have complete coverage if it's one of those articles that needs recent web snippets everywhere  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  07:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, no I haven't seen that email. Agree about being proactive. I looked at two FARCs today, and plan to look at a few more. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Sabine's not replying. Her's the bottom of the cite denisty  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  06:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Liberal movement 23 42 1.82 Michael Woodruff 12 23 1.916 Yagan 30 59 1.96666 History of Burnside 21 43 2.0476 Yarralumla, ACT 18 39 2.166 Alkateb v Godwin 26 61 2.346 Brabham 33 75 2.2727 Robert Garran 25 59 2.36 D Dunstan 29 69 2.379 Tas Devil 14 35 2.5

L->R they are prose size (kb), cites, and cite density  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  06:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Australi's health section might be waiting for a pro like you  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  06:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Gossia acmenoides
Hi, Thanks for looking at Gossia acmenoides. The photo isn't the best, and I initially wasn't going to write the article because of this. Despite being a straight and a single stem, I'm 90% confident it is Gossia acmenoides. There's very few lilli pilli type trees with pale blotchy trunks in Barrington Tops, it certainly wasn't Syzygium australe or Syzygium smithii. A few days ago at Barrington Tops I finally took a photo of "The Russian", Vesselowskya venusta. kind regards, Poyt448 (talk) 02:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Cool... :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Unprotection of Perjury
I'm not going to say I care particularly about this being unprotected because I'm not that bothered. But I've managed to source all the BLP stuff reliably (that wasn't done already). It is also on my watchlist. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay then - unprotected. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks :). -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Madagascar logging GAN
Hi Cas! I noticed that you have been reviewing the Illegal logging in Madagascar article (Talk:Illegal logging in Madagascar/GA1), but that nothing has really been done over the past month. Are you still working on reviewing this? Dana boomer (talk) 02:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * sigh -I know - I was unsure of what to do about this as it led to a big scope issue. Will post a note at WT:GAN. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Outline format issue in Major depressive disorder
Greetings!

I am confused by your apparent reintroduction in the referenced article of article outline subdivisions that have only one member. This has [already been discussed] on that article's Talk page. I backed up my assertion there that this is unacceptable format in any discipline's style guide (any that I'm familiar with), or in any of the major multi-disciplinary guides - MLA, Chicago, APA, etc. (I'll soon be providing explicit references, after my next library trip in a couple of days). As I said on the Talk page, this is all documented in the Outline (summary) article (where I'll be putting the addition documentation, as soon as I have it in hand - but what's there is already sufficient to make the point).

I fixed the non-standard format which your edits introduced, assuming that you'd done this more or less inadvertently. You did not voice objection in the original discussion. My fixes:
 * "Cited texts" - reverted to level 2 heading
 * Epidemiology > "Cormorbidity" - added two subsections to the main section: Prevalence, and Disease impacts

But, I may have erred in my assumption that your changes back to non-standard format were inadvertent. If so, please advise me. Perhaps you think this single-subheading formatting is acceptable in Wikipedia?

There is no explicit Wikipedia Policy that I have yet found which forbids such single subheading outlining, aberrant though it surely is. However, I am planning to initiate action to change that. Such outlining does appear illiterate, and does not reflect well upon the quality of our best articles. I think we should not be seeing this mistake in such articles - ever. The best authorities on style in scholarly writing certainly agree with this assertion.

Feel free to reply here, as I will be watching this page for about a week. After that, however, I'll remove the watch. Tom Cloyd (talk) 00:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm, no, will discuss on the talk page of MDD. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Telopea mongaensis
Hello! Your submission of Telopea mongaensis at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ErinM (talk) 06:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

NSW Waratah
I am most honoured although, in fact, I have just been pottering around on it for 3 years and going nowhere, wheras you have been pumping it with informational steroids (and some nice pix) for the last couple of months. --Melburnian (talk) 10:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Heh, no big deal, and a good way to say 'thanks' - the more the merrier with many of these articles (we-ell two or three makes for a good team :)) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I pinched it from this :) Melburnian (talk) 11:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * what distributions maps no longer required for FA...:( Gnangarra 11:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd certainly like to have one in it, especially one prepared by your good self, not sure of an info source though. Melburnian (talk) 12:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Voila one distribution map see file page for source info Gnangarra 12:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My goodness, that was quick, thanks. Just one thing, could you knock off the separate red bit up towards the Queensland border, that population is now identified as Telopea aspera. Melburnian (talk) 13:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * and done Gnangarra 13:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * and in. Thanks! Melburnian (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

(wakes up, rubs eyes) wow, cool. I will just fetch a page number from Flora of Australia vol 16 which has the same map and use it as a source - everyone's got the same map as there is one on the anbg site too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

semi protection
I'll leave a note. Your explanation mentioned copyright violations, and I'm not sure why you saw that as an emphasis point. Brexx is annoying and persistent, but doesn't do blatant copyvios very often.

Be wary of anyone from 86.96.0.0/16 asking for unprotection: that's Brexx.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay - I just saw copyvios listed as a problem early on - hence my mention of it as a serious problem. I trust you to sum up the problerm in a nutshell :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Australia
In another matter, I was wondering whether you will be starting the health section for the article? YellowMonkey said something vague about that... &mdash;Dark 07:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (groan) yeah..about that...gimme a day or two. I think I can come up with something. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

[[Manchester United F.C.
If you get the chance, I'd really appreciate it if you took a look at Manchester United F.C.. Its currently waiting for peer review, and the aim is to take it to FAC in the near future. Thanks Tomlock01 (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
... for your GA review and indeed pass for hepatic encephalopathy. JFW | T@lk  20:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem. Now is a good time to try and pump another few potential med GAs through - any others you want me to run my eyes over before slotting them in WP:GAN? I generally hate writing about them....too much like work, but recognise I have been lazy in the area and could do more :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Diabetes in Dogs
I am biting the bullet and doing a review - starting with some informal feedback on the Diabetes in dogs page. I'd appreciate your opinion of the references formatting. Should I begin the task of putting them all into the template, or is it sufficient that they use a consistent style? Regards, Marj (talk) 02:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The template is not essential, and actually takes up a bit of memory, so as long as it is consistent it s okay, unless you really want to format it all. I do because I am a slob and liable to muff some formatting somehwere. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Marj (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Telopea mongaensis
Hi, thanks for editing and improving my articles lately. Poyt448 (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Eucalyptus agglomerata
Thanks for looking at Boronia imlayensis. It grows only in a strip about 50 metres wide and 500 metres long. So, I assumed that this very restricted habitat would afford the species some kind of rarity status. It grows next to the Imlay Mallee, which is listed as "critically endangered". Admittedly there's a lot fewer of those than the Boronia.

My climb and exploration of Mount Imlay in November was perhaps the greatest and final of my many outdoor off-track explorations. I'm a bit too old to do these solo explorations anymore. My friends are too fat, too busy with careers, wives, kids and too scared. There was a published report of the Atherosperma growing in the rainforest below the summit. And speculation that the Nothofagus cunninghamii and or Pinkwood might also be in this hidden and remote southern rainforest.

However, my observations came up with the same results of Alexander Floyd. Unfortunately, I forgot to photograph the Native Privet (Nestegis ligustrina). This secret rainforest was one of the most spectacular and beautiful in my entire experience. Practically all the entire 25 metre tall canopy made of Elaeocarpus holopetalus.

You have every right to be jealous of my explorations and opportunities. However, I think Mount Imlay is beyond me in the future. That is unless I can find someone who will go with me. I'd like to return and photograph the Imlay Mallee, Native Privet and search a bit harder for the Atherosperma and goodness knows what else that might be found.

regards Poyt448 (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Maritsa Hotel
Nice job blocking that vandal. It was a page move vandal, unfortunately. I've reverted all their edits with the "rollback all" script and reverted the page moves. Would you mind deleting the redirects left behind as G3s and moving Chihuahua (dawgs) back to Chihuahua (dog) as another editor has mistakenly edited the target since the move, so it needs to be done by an admin. Much obliged, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   11:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like someone caught it. Wish I'd remembered the "rollback all" tool as I am not often doing vandal reverts like this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Nawlinwiki and TheDJ seem to have deleted them all. It's not something I'm used to either- only the second or third time I've seen page move vandalism and the first "mass move" vandalism. At least you blocked them quickly so they weren;t making more edits while I was trying to clean up! Thanks, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   14:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It only came to my attention as garden was on my watchlist...Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Christian Bale is on mine (along with a large collection of other potential problem BLPs). I thought the move was a bit strange so I looked at their contribs and was very glad I'd installed the "rollback all" script. Is there any way to revert multiple moves (or just one) without having to manually enter the original title? Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   14:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Dunno, I am not too familiar with these sort of things - I suspect there are alot of folks in a better position than me to answer that :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Query
Hi Cas. Would anything that is a DSM and/or ICD diagnosis come under psychiatry rather than psychology? Fainites barley scribs 20:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * One could argue that since psychiatrists wrote both classifications, then all of them are more psychiatric rather than psychological - otherwise, I think it is hard to specify any conditions as more towards one discipline than the other (and highlighting just how arbitrary the demarcation is. CBT is mainly done by psychologists, yet I know psychiatrists who do it too - and the more long term stuff is more the domain of psychiatrists - many folks who present with some form of anxiety which looks more amenable to a short term structured therapy like CBT can turn out to have a whole host of issues better examined and dealt with in an insight-related approach...and some complex borderline pathology can sometimes benefit from a structured approach...so there you are :)


 * In one of my jobs helping run an outpatient psych rehab team for mental health (with mainly schizophrenia and bpd making up the inpatients), my team was made up mostly of occupatinal therapists, who were actually marvellously hands on and practical...and I taught them about attachment theory and some psychodynamic thingies and we did well with a bunch of complex patients :) Casliber (talk · contribs)


 * We tend to pick the person rather than the strict discipline :-D I was thinking of project tags really though.Fainites barley scribs  20:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Aaah yeah, I just sling 'em both on. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
–– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The travels of Casliber
Just looked at your userpage. So, where did you go in Vietcongistan?  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  04:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Lotsa places - went there in 1995 for 4 weeks - in HCM city, down to My Tho and Can Tho, up to Nhatrang, Hoian, Hue the Champa ruins near Dalang, Sapa, Halong Bay and flew out of Hanoi....Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Bus routes
Actually I agree with you completely that the London bus routes are best handled with separate articles. My point, which I didn't make as clearly as I'd have liked, is that even if there were consensus that in a given case an article was not merited, redirection would be the obvious and most sensible course of action. None of the London bus route articles should ever get anywhere near any near a deletion discussion, because a suitable merge target already exists. Tasty monster (=TS ) 06:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Boletus edulis 2
Hello!

User talk:Casliber <- Could you figure out something? ... Thanks, Doc Taxon (talk) 09:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

GAN backlog elimination drive - 1 week to go
–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 16:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Pics
I wandered through the banksia garden at Kings Park today. Got a lot of photos. I didn't have much time to be fussy, as I had to keep up; but they've come out better than a poke in the eye with a burnt stick. I'm working through cropping and renaming now. They'll be uploaded over the next few days. Hesperian 07:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Fantastic - I buffed up scabrella too - no word on oligantha photos yet though :( Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm all done. 39 photos in all. Only one first: B. lemanniana. Most are overall or foliage shots of species that we already have a good inflorescence shot of, thanks to you; so they are marginally useful images that I only jammed in if the article was developed enough to warrant it. This is my favourite. Hesperian 12:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, laricina is a great photogenic plant and we have some diverse nice photos for it. Be good to buff up to max. size so we've got a place for the photos eh? Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep... but I still can't commit to much right now. Email on that. Hesperian 23:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Never mind - take care as this will all still be here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Banksia scabrella
Materialscientist (talk) 08:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I also was wondering if you would consider adopting me, still pretty new at all this. Not nearly as verbose as the person above either :-)--Tmckeage (talk) 08:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding. I have two areas I could use help with. Projectional radiography has been a long interest of mine. I would love to see this page achieve at least good status. Right now its a mess and although I have done some work I have lost some steam and could use some advice on how to eat this elephant. Also I started work on 2010 earthquakes, I requested Editor assistance but I'm not completely sure that was right. Any advice you could give me on that one would be really helpful as well. Thank you. --Tmckeage (talk) 12:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * OK I just walked into a HUGE quagmire. I started to compile ideas for inclusion in the Projectional radiography page. I basically decided that I needed an article that described what projectional radiography is AND how it is achieved. What it is is relatively simple and I can heavily borrow and link from other topics. How it is achieved is the more difficult of the two. A key concept is called ALARA describing the concept in full would really be beyond the scope of my article but an article has been created and is a redirect to a similar but different concept called ALARP. My instinct is to be bold and replace the redirect with a brand new article but I hunted around and found Radiation protection. This further confuses the subject and it appears that at some point some bizarre consensus was reached by people with a limited understanding on the subject. I'm worried about stepping on toes, starting an edit war, getting into a petrol/gasoline argument(ALARP is primarily a UK principal, ALARA is US).


 * So far the only option I know of is going ahead with replacing the redirect along with my reasoning for doing so in the talk page. What would be really awesome was if there was some way to get pre-approval on my concept, but I have no clue on how to do that. Thanks for any help you can provide. --Tmckeage (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the notes. I think I got a little obsessed, and the annoyed over the ALARA mess I lost sight of the bigger goal. Thanks for keeping me on track :-)--Tmckeage (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Boba Phat at AFD again
An AFD you participated in 6 months ago, is being done again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boba_Phat_(2nd_nomination)  D r e a m Focus  08:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Lambertia formosa
-- Cirt (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Madagascar logging
What about moving some of the detail to footnotes? I still think that "pales in comparison" (to pick one random phrase that caught my eye) isn't encyclopaedic writing. Guettarda (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I fixed the questionable wording mentioned here. –  VisionHolder  « talk »  22:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 April newsletter
Round two is over, and we are down to our final 32. For anyone interested in the final standings (though not arranged by group) this page has been compiled. Congratulations to, our clear overall round winner, and to and , who were solidly second and third respectively. There were a good number of high scorers this round- competition was certainly tough! Round three begins tomorrow, but anything promoted after the end of round two is eligible for points. 16 contestants (eight pool leaders and eight wildcards) will progress to round four in two months- things are really starting to get competitive. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Judge iMatthew has retired from Wikipedia, and we wish him the best. The competition has been ticking over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. A special thank you goes to participants and  for their help in preparing for round three. Good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 17:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

RfAr arbs showing partiality
Sorry to bring this to your attention, Cas, but a serious matter has come up at the current RfAr. How do you think things should proceed when arbitrators are demonstrating partiality and a conflict of interest? I'm happy to simply build up comments from uninvolved editors and parties from outside Wikipedia if necessary, but there are probably many more gracious ways forward. The current case needs arbitrators willing, at least in principle, to acknowledging arbitrators can and do make mistakes, particularly in respect to me and my account. Third parties are obviously going to see that it is clearly unfair that friends of mine are excluded from commenting on Coren's actions and failures, while friends of his are permitted to comment. Alastair Haines (talk) 23:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm, difficult. I understand the stickiness of the situation. One of the main thinks I think the arbitrators will look for is a willingness to negotiate and look forward, and take a constructive rather than adversarial role. I have not been following the case and only just started to look at it after seeing you post here. Have posted this as an initial statement and will think and look some more. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Negotiation and construction are my middle names, as pages and pages of my archives and edit history demonstrate. What I'm not seeing is any willingness to meet me half-way from the arbs, though I do appreciate being given time to work up evidence. Speaking frankly, I have no genuine interest in restricting people who've made my life difficult, but obviously I can't negotiate on the basis of admitting I've done wrong where I simply haven't.
 * There is one thing I do regret, and that is responding in kind when I thought Guettarda was being petty in one tiny matter. Having recently seen her user page, her declining to join Kaldari's witch-hunt, her interest in plants and animals, and her own life circumstances, as well as the fact that she actually went to the trouble of writing substantial posts to support her opinion at Steven Goldberg, I wish that incident had not eventuated. But it was a tag-bomber and Kaldari that precipitated the incident, not either Guettarda or myself. That's all the more reason for Kaldari to admit his own key part in disturbing equilibrium.
 * I ask so little, and others demand so much, that it's hard to negotiate. If only I was asking for more, then I'd be able to drop stuff, but all I ask is that false allegations be quashed. How can anyone back off from that position?
 * Well, thanks for keeping an eye on things. I'd kind of prefer you weren't committed to active discussion. I find these processes far too full of aggro for my liking, but I have no choice but to participate. They are certainly not your scene. I didn't invite my friends IndianChronicles and RedTigerxyz for the same reason. It's all so unpleasant. Mind you, those champs dropped in anyway, bravo! :)
 * Anyway, I'm a big boy and used to having to fend for myself, and with EGMichaels around, I'm a long way from fending for myself. It's not panic stations, unless arbs presume too much with no evidence but hearsay, and then act on that. That would lead to more tiresomeness. Oh well, let's see.
 * Our new place is in Ashfield, btw. It's great! Very happy! Alastair Haines (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Erm, Guettarda is a 'he' actually :) We are currently unpacking still more stuff and organising new house (which is taking ages...) Congrats on new house. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Woopsy re Guettarda, OK. We are both in similar circumstance then re homes.
 * I'm pushing a little here. It's no big deal. I have nothing against Coren, it's just we should do things properly. I think he's entitled to mistrust me, and argue I've behaved badly. It's just not right for him to be starting from that position as an arb, when all past "evidence" against me is currently being challenged, not only by me, but by half-a-dozen third parties. Arbs have to look neutral. I'm offering for people to bring in an arb who doesn't like me if they want, just so long as neither I nor anyone else would be able to demonstrate that. Make sense? Alastair Haines (talk) 09:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Alastair, one thing I can say about Coren is he plays with a straight bat - i.e. he says what he thinks, and is not afraid to do so. If he says he doesn't bear a grudge, I'd take him at face value and suspect that if you move on with a prospective attitude then that will be a big positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, Cas, I read Coren just the same way. I'm just playing with the straight bat I always use also. It doesn't help for arbs other than Coren to breach AGF and suggest silly things like grudges on my part. Coren stuffed up. It's documented that third parties agreed. It should be admitted. Refusal to do so just shows disappointing partiality. The failure of various arbs to admit error at various points in discussion so far is slowing down resolution of long standing issues. I'm just concerned that it doesn't look good for arbs to actually demonstrate the sort of conduct I've been falsely accused of. In my opinion, Coren's been the most straight-forward of arbs so far. That doesn't change the fact that he has been involved, and unhelpfully, in the matters being investigated at the current RfAr. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Paper
An interesting abstract:. A new species, plus implications, I assume, for historical biogeography. I can't access the PDF myself; I've asked Rkitko if he can. Hesperian 23:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Emailed. Guettarda (talk) 00:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * thanks - charismatic genus hahaha :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In the opening paragraph they call it "famous". :-) Hesperian 01:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Even better. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've watchlisted the article. Waiting to see that link turn blue. Guettarda (talk) 05:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

G'day. More empty reassurances that I'll get to B. sessilis as soon as I have time. I printed out several useful papers today, but have been too busy to read them let alone work them in. The caesia paper Rkitko provided at WT:PLANTS looks red hot. Hesperian 14:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Cool. Just buffing sessilis now before I go to bed. It is shaping up nicely. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Me, I've got no brains left tonight. I'm over at Wikisource mindlessly transcribing pages of Sachs' History of Botany. Hesperian 14:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you recall seeing a source for its ability to recolonise disturbed areas? as nothing's turning up online...Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it isn't the best reference, but you could use Leaf & Branch (see the prionotes article for the full citation.) Page 92: "As its thickets suggest, parrotbush regenerates readily. A prolific flowerer, it produces many seeds. In the Darling Range it is a good colonizer of gravel-pits." Hesperian 14:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Phew - you found something - what a relief and to think I have a copy as well :( SatuSuro 15:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Lamont et al. (1998), pp 381–382: "Prolific flowering in D. sessilis does lead to massive seed output, accounting for its exceptional colonising ability after and between fires." [my emphasis] Hesperian 13:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's great! I need to sleep now, but in the am...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added a mention myself, in discussing high fecundity as fire adaptation. I have a handful of solid pathology papers here, so I'll make a start on a disease subsection next. G'night. Hesperian 14:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I know this conversation is stale now, but I found a great reference for this. The first sentence of
 * is
 * "The proteaceous species Dryandra sessilis (Knight) Domin is an aggressive coloniser of disturbed or open forest in south west Western Australia."
 * Hesperian 13:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No indeed - this ref is much better, as the other only mentioned its colonising of disturbed areas being observed in the Darling Scarp.Can you add as I am wrestling with microsoft word in another tab? Back later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't see this last night. Done now. I have a couple of papers on root physiology that I want to read to see if it is worth adding a paragraph, and then I'll be all done. Hesperian 02:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, I'll lurk a bit and copyedit. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, I'll lurk a bit and copyedit. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * While I've got you, I've just proofed Wikisource:Page:History of botany (Sachs; Garnsey).djvu/42, which has three Greek words with diacritics. I'm reasonably certain about two of them, but the middle one has that ~/^ problem that I seem to remember asking you about a long time ago. Could have have a quick look for me? Hesperian 14:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, should be a rounded circumflex thingy - I changed it. I really need to sleep now....Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thankyou, thankyou, and goodnight! Hesperian 14:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

More bedtime reading
—the most recent phylogeny and dating of Proteaceae. Easy to miss with such an obscure title. Hesperian 12:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)