User talk:Casliber/Archive 38

DYK for Golden-winged Sunbird
Yngvadottir (talk) 00:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Rogelio Bernal Andreo
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Collaboration
Hi, I wrote an article of Biodiversity of Wales. I nominated it for DKY but it still needs some more work. I was wondering if you could help out. Thanks! :D -- RexRowan Talk  09:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for editing the article! I think the evolution part needs more source as I got it from a single source but I struggle to find more. -- RexRowan Talk  12:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Listen Rex, I am a bit busy and really need to spend some time on another article tonight, but there are some things that need doing with the Biodiversity of Wales article. There are some basic grammatical errors littered through it that really need fixing, and also Endemism does not mean what you have listed underneath it. It means organisms found nowhere else. Those segments on trees, plants etc. should be moved to the segments above. can you do that? Also there is a county list with flowers - should that have a heading? If you can fix all those things I will drop by soon after (just need to edit elsewhere for a bit!). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Pyxis
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Bird question
Got a question for you on California State Route 52 since I'm not a biology person... should Least Bell's Vireo be capitalized? Our article has it capitalized, but the newspaper sources don't... --Rschen7754 03:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes because the article is specifically talking about this bird form which is endangered. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks! --Rschen7754 03:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Imaging breakthroughs
Hi Cas:

Finished working on the former Aperture masking comments at FAC. You may have some thoughts for final improvement. Two minor concerns:
 * 1) I changed the word "comparable" to "superior" due to Dupree's statement that "With diffraction-limited resolving power Fl/D, where D is the telescope’s diameter, HST at 2550 Å can theoretically resolve objects 1.4 times smaller than can ground based telescopes of 4 m aperture, which typically (Wilson et al.1992) operate near 7000 Å."  Sounds like "superior" is the more accurate adjective, but comparable is perhaps more conservative.
 * 2) For the last comment that begins with "The image was taken at ultraviolet wavelengths..." I rewrote the sentence, but I'm not sure I addressed the concern raised by Hekerui.  Take a look and modify as needed.

Thanks.--Sadalsuud (talk) 13:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Overall "superior" is more definite and accurate than "comparable". The prose is concise yet engaging. Will check on the last bit. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Shanghai Botanical Garden
The DYK project (nominate) 08:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Episodic Mass loss
Hi Cas:

Great work on all those MoS edits! We finally crossed the goal line. Quite amazing!

I'm a little lost as to what to do now. I still see a few places that are cause for concern. What do you suggest? I noticed the first sentence of Circumstellar dynamics was significantly edited. Here's what I think is the reason behind the wide discrepancies in mass loss rates: there are two kinds of mass loss, 1) stellar wind and 2) episodic.

I read the Harper 2001 ref that is used here. It states: "If the radial density structure is assumed to be the same as in 1992 September,when HST /GHRS spectra were obtained, then the Fe II wind absorption features provide an estimate of the mass-loss rate of 3.1(^1.3)]10~6 M yr~1." Sounds like he's talking about the stellar wind loss rate. Episodic mass loss is the phenomenon associated with the huge plume of gas (i.e. Kervella pic). So I think we need to be careful here. Note it's the ESO 2009 article that quotes 1M☉ and references Kervella 2009, a more recent figure than Harper.

Any thoughts?--Sadalsuud (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Damn, my downloading is slow - ultimately I guess we'll have some answers after November. Will read the two articles again in a tic. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't find where in the 2009 paper mass loss is discussed. Unless I am missing something....Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that. It's the Ohnaka 2009 paper that quotes this figure.  Here's the exact quote: "Red supergiants (RSGs) experience slow, intensive mass loss up to 10−4 M⊙ yr−1. Despite its importance not only in stellar evolution but also in the chemical enrichment of the interstellar matter, the mass loss mechanism in RSGs is not well understood."  It's general, but bottom line is we just don't know the mass loss rate for Betelgeuse.


 * The upcoming conference looks interesting. I noticed two things: 1) it's being sponsored by the Paris Observatory and 2) Ohnaka and Harper are keynote speakers.  These folks all know each other.


 * I know we wrestled with this issue prior to FAC, especially since Mohamed 2012 quotes the Harper 0.03 figure in his infobox. But as we saw from Mohamed, he doesn't provide the full spectrum of opinions that are out there. Given the uncertainty among researchers, I think we're better off conveying the same message for now and not rely on that Mohamed/Harper number, especially since it's already 11 years old.--Sadalsuud (talk) 08:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Dang, the Ohnaka paper is frustrating too. It opens up with that statement....which is clearly a conclusion from somewhere else....and doesn't calculate anything within the article either...I agree that an 11yo paper is a problem, given it predates the more accurate Hipparcos etc. Maybe we should write to them? Hmmm...I must say I am a bit Betelgeused out at present, but it would be nice to sort out the sentence. Given all the researchers know each other, one gets the feeling that the ESO press release probably represents a consensus of sorts...as does the opening statement of the Ohnaka paper....Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I can certainly understand being a little worn out with Betelgeuse. I've been there a few times myself.  What I propose is I'll do a little rework and then invite User:Modest Genius to contribute his insights.  He's been extremely helpful in sorting out some other problems in the past.  His expertise, interestingly enough, is the interstellar medium.  I'll keep you posted.--Sadalsuud (talk) 02:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I modified the first paragraph of Circumstellar dynamics. I think you'll like it.  I managed to keep Harper 2001, but couched it differently, so anyone reading Mohamed 2012 will understand the conclusion that is reached.  Also you might want to keep your eye on this post at Modest Genius. One last thing, will we be notified when Betelgeuse will be featured on the home page?--Sadalsuud (talk) 03:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh yes. I was thinking of aiming for the time of the conference - see Today's featured article/requests and Today's featured article/requests/pending - hang on, will look at changes....say, wanna buff up Rigel now? (chuckle).....Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The timing sounds great! Regarding Rigel, I'm up for it, though I'd like to take a break for a bit and get the Corona Australis Molecular Cloud article posted.  Hopefully this weekend.--Sadalsuud (talk) 21:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that sentence is the best consensus sentence we can provide on the matter - agree with it as written. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Canis Minor
The article Canis Minor you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within a few days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Canis Minor for things which need to be addressed. Tomcat (7) 12:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Canis Minor
The article Canis Minor you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Canis Minor for comments about the article. Well done! Tomcat (7) 20:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
I appreciate your thoughtful oppose at the Arbcom clarification request. You nailed it with the last sentence of your comment. —Torchiest talkedits 19:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Bradwall
Thanks for taking the time for making a Bradwall GA Review. I have taken in your suggestions and either made corrections or comments, as described in the sub-page I mention on the talk page. --Iantresman (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, next update completed. --Iantresman (talk) 21:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for helping to make Bradwall a Good Article. I better start reading your Featured Article recipe. --Iantresman (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Pictor
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Issue with hook
Your articles are usually solid, but do you realize that the statement, "with a mass equivalent to approximately 800 trillion suns," does not mean is has "800 trillion stars" that each weigh the equivalent of our sun? We can't count the number of stars, we can however calculate the mass of the system. The latter was done, the former was, unfortunately, featured on the main page, and is neither verifiable nor sourced. It's also probably not true. -Fjozk (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Oops, you're right. My bad. I'll be more careful next time. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Feel free to ask me if have questions about mass measurement issues. -Fjozk (talk) 05:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok - this was more of a speed-reading and juggling-too-many-activities/multitasking error than physics. If you're an astronomy buff, I am trying to apply some spit'n'boot polish to Triangulum Australe before sending to the snake pit....I'll be attempting to buff Canopus, Rigel and some other stars at some point, but probably not for a few weeks.....all help needed with them as my physics is really rusty.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm an expert in mass, not astronomy. I probably don't have time to read a full article for errors, but if you have specific questions I can probably answer most of the physics. -Fjozk (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok. No real physics in constellation article, so don't worry about that one. I will alert you when one of the others has some physics-related material to look at. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Student work assessment
Hi Cas. Mike Christie, who is overseeing our outreach to North American university students, has asked at WT:MED for an evaluation of some student contributions to articles on NPD, personality and attitude articles. I'm pointing you to it in case you missed it and one or more of those topics interests you. That N. American educational program consumes a lot of the Wikimedia Foundation's time and money, so assessments from several interested med editors would be very valuable. No pressure: I'm just spreading the word. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Ack! I'll take a look....Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * More comments later - they're psych but that's ok. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Percentages
How many F-off's, tw--ts, cu-ts, insults and personal attacks does everyone get per FA or GA? How about 3 per FAC or 2 per GAN review and 10 for every personally nominated FA that passes and maybe 5 per GA that one nominates that passes. How about for new article starts...maybe 2 for a stub and 3 for a start class article and 4 or 5 if it is then placed at DYK? I would suggest that though it is hard to always remain civil, anyone making what appears to be minimal effort should have some restriction placed upon them. But, if you're going to say that everyone gets 1, 2, 3 or more percentage of their edits to be unconstructive personal attacks, then lets get that into policy so its binding for everyone. In looking over where Malleus seems to get himself into trouble...it's not in copyediting, where unless the edit summary is used to attack, the copyedit itself wouldn't be the issue...so examine talkpage and discussion page edits, you'll find that percentage is well beyond the 3 percent you mentioned. So whats the plan?...I offer the following as a reasonable interim clarification and admendment to the current and past case: (I say interim because I feel that an outright ban is inevitable) Malleus is banned from participation in Rfa and the Rfa process inclusively for one year. I don't know why this hasn't been proposed already.--MONGO 15:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

In 2006 the arbitration committee desysopped me based on six (6) issues they found. In two of those issues, Jimbo Wales ended up blocking/banning one editor I had blocked (User:Miltopia)...In the chorus of opposition to the measure to desyop me, some editors that weren't even very fond of me pointed out that I had made over 5,000 administrative actions including deletions, blocks, Arbcom enforcements, reverts and comments to others in my administrative capacity...none of my deletions, reverts, blocks or actions were undone, overturned or even challenged save one. Yet they desysopped me anyway. I think they did the right thing actually. The reason I think they did the right thing was because I was unrepentant and did not offer promises to make amends for my transgressions. Malleus has been given innumerable opportunities to make even a small gesture of acknowledgement that he needs to clean up his act...and he won't apparently do so. But even here and now, I offer a reasonable clarification that is just though I feel is far to lenient. Otherwise, lets delete the NPA and CIVIL things and turn this website into an open forum where everyone gets to say whatever they want whenever they want and there will be no consequences.--MONGO 15:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I fear that MONGO makes a very good point here, alas. The whole genteel system of barnstars, GA points, FA points and so on, gets rather tarnished by a new, rather less attractive, motivational regime where one knows that, if one contributes enough good material, or wins enough GAs, one gets to tell another editor one dislikes to "fuck off" or to call a less experienced editor "a stupid twat". OK, we might all shrug our shoulders and sigh, saying "what real harm does this do", especially when most of those concerned are pretty thick-skinned middle-aged men. But what message does this send out to younger editors? And of course we might make a slight faux pas and call a young American lady editor "a cunt". Not so encouraging for all, really. And what about thin-skinned wussie editors like myself, who are happy to add content, even to do a bit of research and fact checking, but only on condition that they do not have to expect a stream of verbal abuse at the drop of a hat? I'm sure there are lots of other websites that one can find where one can get verbally abused for far less effort. After a few years editing one can expect to get and ignore verbal abuse from anon ips, trolls, sock puppets and the rest.. but from a "good editor"? from "one of the best editors"?!! OK, rant over. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree this isn't easy whichever way we go. I guess I note that folks deal with conflict in different ways - we have explosive people and we have some superficially people who can bear grudges a mighty long time. The enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend meme is one I suspected I saw a lot a few years ago, and I think is one of the biggest barriers to instituting change here (which needs to happen in a few areas) I think the latter profile has benefitted at the expense of the former. Ideally we'd have civility all round, and no drama anywhere but we do and we're all only human. I have more to write later but need to attend to other stuff. I have a big "Crossroads" type speech in my head..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Regretfully, I am withdrawing my very fair suggestion for clarification above. It's apparent that doing nothing is the easiest choice even though it solves nothing.--MONGO 01:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * My favourite character in Crossroads was always Benny. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Peer review
Please peer review this for me!--Lucky102 (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Voucher to Gerda
When the voucher for CORE comes through, please give all our share to Gerda so that a German language copy of the Reiner Stach biography can be bought for a German library. Thank you.

Request
Hi there! I just took a look at your user page and it looks AWESOME! I've been thinking of changing my user page but don't know how. Can you help me change the section about my contributions? I tried to create columns but the userboxes won't let me do it properly. I aslo love the color of your userpage. Please, help me out. Do whatever you think is necessary to make the page look a little better. I would very much appreciate your help. Thank you! Nataev (talk) 07:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll have to remember - it was a retired user who tweaked it in the first place....Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * WOW! Thank you very much! It looks great! And you responded really fast! Thank you again! Nataev (talk) 08:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. just delete the globe if it is a problem. Thanks again. Nataev (talk) 08:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've got an idea....Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Trouted
You have been trouted for: BEING AWESOME! )))

Sock Puppetry
Hi! Hope everything is fine. I'm suspecting that the User:BengaliHindu has several user accounts and using them in a disruptive, misleading, or unhelpful manner. I'm seeking your advice prior to filling an investigation case. These user ids can serve as evidence:
 * Special:Contributions/Unknown.citizen12
 * Special:Contributions/Krishnendudelhi
 * Special:Contributions/Ssitaa1814
 * Special:Contributions/Fazla_Rabbi

Thanks for your co-operation. -- Zayeem (talk) 15:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Coral Mushrooms vs. Coral Fungi
Not a fungi expert, just confused about an inconsistency...

The main page for today (Friday 26 October 2012) lists a number of coral fungi in the "Do You Know" section, including the Blah Coral. But the Blah Coral page makes reference to coral mushroom which redirects to Gomphaceae. Coral fungi, on the other hand, redirects to Clavarioid fungi, which references Basidiomycota but otherwise seems to Gomphaceae.

Since the Gomphaceae was yours, I wondered if you knew how all this sorted out...Morfusmax (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed the link, thanks. Sasata (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * aaah, Clavarioid fungi is best target. The coral fungi were sunk into the family Gomphaceae, which explains it. However a link to a subset is more accurate. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Hoolboom film
Hi Cas, I put the article you reviewed up for PR. It's been expanded a bit (I was able to dig up some Globe and Mail and The Age [Aussie!] references, which gave a lot more background) and I think it would have a fighting chance at FAC. Would you be willing to peer review? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I thought it was written really well. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the PR is here if you want to stop by. Still waiting on Sudirman at FAC, so it isn't in a rush. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Done the GA review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Sock Puppetry
Hi! I think you missed my last post so I'm posting this again. I'm suspecting that the User:BengaliHindu has several user accounts and using them in a disruptive, misleading, or unhelpful manner. I thought it would be better to have some advice from an Arbitration Committee member before filling a case as written here. I'm also seeking a CheckUser Review for this. These user ids can serve as evidence: Thanks -- Zayeem (talk) 12:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Special:Contributions/Unknown.citizen12
 * Special:Contributions/Krishnendudelhi
 * Special:Contributions/Ssitaa1814
 * Special:Contributions/Fazla_Rabbi


 * I think posting there is prudent. By posting here you are making your suspicions public anyway, so there is nothing to lose by posting it there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- Zayeem (talk) 06:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Great! Maybe I'll do a little dance Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for helping to organize the core contest

 * Yes, thanks for taking on the big task! It is important to get the central articles right. Binksternet (talk) 23:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Yeah, the star ones are interesting. I was bemused that alot of astronomy articles have been rather dry, and the challenge of making the prose engaging yet keeping it concise is a fascinating one - interesting titrating this one some sort of continuum. Funny reason, I got a new car and lost the PIN to the stereo, so began idly listening to podcasts (ABC radio starstuff and jodcast) which well and truly rekindled interest in astronomy, as well as a friend of my wife's giving us an old telescope - was amusing seeing how impressed my kids were when I showed them Saturn, and Jupiter's moons. Anyhoo, my next cab off the rank is Triangulum Australe which I have asked for Peer Review - any input into the snazziness or otherwise of the prose would be much appreciated. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Will take a look some time. We don't have a telescope, but looking forward to showing my son the same things soon (he's 4, so probably not quite ready...) Should try and say hello sometime that I'm in Sydney... Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thx :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Ahmad Shah Massoud‎
Where is the edit war? Plus discussion is ongoing on the talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Your reversion marks an edit war. It doesn't have to be three. So let's just stop it right there. The page is contentious and continued reverting is going to get everyone more annoyed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, now that you've protected it (on the WRONG version!!!!!*%$!1! dammit! [[File:Wall25.gif]]), how do you propose we proceed? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Each segment is discussed separately as before and weighed up on its own merits or otherwise. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * PS: The page is frozen to stop the edit warring - that is all. It is no indication on the relative merits of the version the page is on. That is to be decided. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * So, do you plan to continue playing the content arbitrator? It's a rather uncommon interpretation of the admin role, and some might argue it's actually against admin policy, but I'd be willing to submit to it, as the lesser evil – it's better than the alternative of having to pretend a discussion with DS+J with the purpose of persuading them could be a rational enterprise. Only please deliver your judgments quickly, because otherwise the whole setup is simply a license for more stonewalling, and will be slowing down the necessary cleanup immensely. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, you should know me well enough to know that I know how protection works. ;-) – Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't see how an admin can supervise these areas without at least some attempt to look at how editors are using sourcing. This isn't some MMORPG but an encyclopedia. I will be looking soon. My free time is patchy however. I will ask for assistance at WP:AN/I too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

RFC draft ArbCom feedback
Hey, Casliber. Unless you tell me I shouldn't, in the nearish future I am just gonna take ArbCom's silence on the question of the binding thing as a "no", remove mention of it from User:Chaos5023/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, and probably soon thereafter make it a live RFC. Just FYI. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The committee tries to get the community to be as autonomous as possible (we ain't gov-com) so by all means take it live as the next step in this debate and notify widely. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Rigel
Do we really need a citation for the colour? The colour index itself is a matter of record, shown in Simbad for example. The exact name we apply to that colour in the case of a star is an issue far beyond the scope of this article, and to a great extent is subjective, but white/blue-white is hardly controversial. The article on colour index should probably address the issue. Lithopsian (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Possibly - I stuck it more of a placeholder after adding the line myself. Not controversial though I could see some argument about "white" vs "blue-white". That debate has been held several times at Canopus ("white" vs "yellow-white". Also, was contemplating on polishing it up for GA/FA, where everything needs a ref.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * There are a variety of possible references, not all consistent. Here are a few:


 * The dynamic range of visual imagery in space (doi 10.1117/12.817184)
 * Sky Catalogue 2000.0
 * The colors of the stars (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.203.3733&rep=rep1&type=pdf) Lithopsian (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw some astronomy content and had to butt in... *grin* Burnham's Celestial Handbook is pretty good with colors. One solution that I've adopted in the constellation articles is saying something along the lines of "The color is variously described as blah, blah, and blah". That seems like a pretty good fix for Rigel; I don't think there's always an accurate way to describe color because each individual observer sees things differently. So you could say "Rigel has a spectral class of whatever, and its color is variously described as..." and still maintain accuracy. Just my musings. :) Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 22:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I will take a look at the above sources. Feel free to chip in folks. I was thinking about buffing either Arcturus or Canopus...but when I started reading about Arcturus I just couldn't get enthused at all....the stuff about astroseismology and where Rigel is at developmentally is fascinating, so just meandering a bit currently. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for EK Trianguli Australis
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Sydney edit-a-thon invitation
Hi there! You are cordially invited to a disability edit-a-thon Saturday week (10 November) in Sydney. If you are unable to attend in person, we will also be collaborating online before, during and after the meetup. Details an attendee list are at Meetup/Sydney/November 2012. Hope you can make it! John Vandenberg 15:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to users listed on Meetup/Sydney/Invite)

TrA ref formatting
Hey, I'm so sorry I dropped the ball on that one. I just got swamped with other work...my bad. :/ Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 19:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries - looks all ok now :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Core contest
Hi Cas, I don't really know how to say this, so will just spit it out. If the delay in sending out the prizes for the Core contest is at all because of anything I might have said or done (which is what I suspect), I'm willing to have my entry disqualified so that the prizes can be sent to the other contestants. Thanks, Truthkeeper (talk) 01:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow! I'm not Casliber but you have received nothing but very high respect from the Core Contest judges. Your entry remains fully qualified. Binksternet (talk) 01:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no way that you would have been disqualified. Let me email the WMUK folks and chase it up for you. My sincere apologies for the delay. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * FYI: For reasons that should be obvious, I've returned it. I didn't enter the contest to play wiki politics - I'm happy to have added content and enjoyed, immensely, working on the page. Let's just leave it at that. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not obvious to me, but I am happy you enjoyed the writing and hope you'll participate again. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Stumbled across this tonight which upset me. I hadn't realized the goal was to achieve FA status and honestly can't do justice to either the Alps or the Brothers Grimm with current time restrictions but have every intention of returning to them. I've not found the atmosphere pleasant here either, and when the factionalism reaches the point that the winner of a contest (ironically it's the first time ever I've won anything) doesn't deserve a mention, then best to redistribute the prize to those who've achieved what apparently was the expected goal. I've sent a message to WMUK that under the circumstances I can't accept. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Just take the prize and buy a few books with it. Fuck principles. Malleus Fatuorum 03:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Truthkeeper88, you appear to be taking personal comments by PumpkinSky and ‎Cwmhiraeth as a reflection of the foundation or goal of the Core Contest. That is incorrect. From my vantage point as a recent judge, I can tell you that the notional goal of taking a core article to FA was never a requirement of the Core Contest, and that your win with the magnificent expansion of the Alps was absolutely deserved on its own very high merits. Binksternet (talk) 04:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Ditto what Malleus said. Yeah, it's awesome if you eventually take the articles to GA or FA. The Core Contest rules, however, specifically disabuse participants of the notion that getting the article to FA/GA status will give them a better chance of winning. The contest is about improving high-importance/low-quality articles, which is what you've done (and I hope will continue to do - you're an fantastic editor). Let other editors, the Signpost, etc. do all of the editorializing they want - take the money, buy some awesome books (and maybe one trashy one, just to get your mind off the factionalism!) and go on ahead taking whatever articles you want to whatever "grade" you damn well feel like. Dana boomer (talk) 04:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

@TK88 - the main motivation for me reviving the contest was what I perceive to be stagnation in alot of content that is not being specifically worked up for DYK, GA or FA, or being argued over. I also believe that wikipedia is at a bit of a crossroads of becoming an established sourcing entity which needs to tighten up its core portfolio of material (as it were), and I reckoned this was better done with carrots rather than sticks. Add to that my own experiences, which is that GA and FA represent (more than any trophy-collecting or dick-measuring tables) stable versions that can be referred to after an article (inevitably) erodes. I also like to see big broad articles get to GA/FA. So I suppose my hope was that various of these articles would eventually make GA or FA, but that was not part of the intensive editing period as it would have been an impossibility to achieve in the time frame. The thrust was that in cases of equal improvement that Really Crap to Good was better than Good to Really Good...Finally, I had no idea about this interview until linked to just now. Looking now at it, I am sorry you weren't approached and not sure what else to say. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's pretty sad that writing GA/FAs has been reduced to a dick-measuring contest. Malleus Fatuorum 04:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * TK, that piece was meant to reflect the interviewees own personal views (in relation to Featured content) and not that of the community or the Core Contest as a whole. I had tried to make the distinction clear, but I guess I wasn't successful. As a note, I agree with Cmw that getting a fairly broad article past FAC in the current environment is more trouble than it's worth; as such, recognition through the FA/GA processes shouldn't be considered necessary for article improvement. Your changes to Alps were (pardon the term) kick-ass. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * @MF, admittedly I was being a bit flippant...and I'm as guilty of trophy-collecting as anyone, but i do mean it that the main reason I myself focus so heavily on GA/FA content is stability..I got miserable the first time I read and digested about not editing unless one did not mind one's edits being edited mercilessly (forget where I read that now) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * @Cas, you've emphasised stability before. As for TK not being notified, I did not intend to slight her achievement. I was focusing on putting the interviewees in context, and in my opinion writing "(user) and (user), who finished second in the Core Contest with their work on (article); this placed behind (user)'s work on (article), which as of writing has not passed FAC" would be a bit more condescending. Even if I leave that last clause, the sentence sounds unfocused to me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Crisco, I would protest this kind of spotlighting, regardless of who won. It's just plain wrong. What we should be doing is to highlight achievements - not reduce them to, well, yeah, did a good job but didn't quite hit the mark so not worthy of mention. I'm not so much upset about myself (which in the grand scheme of life is childish and futile) but I am upset, greatly, to see the playground games that are perpetuated and quite frankly have no place in something like the Core Contest where Cas had a really great idea, and through his initiative we've seen some tremendous work. I'm stepping out and returning the prize because of the playground games. I'm not here for that. I spend plenty of time on the front end of this website, with users, and see clearly what needs to be done. That's what brought me here, is the reason I'm committed, and I couldn't agree more with what Cas said (except for the measuring bit ... because ... well, don't have one so can't measure). I'm just very sorry this played out as it did. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand how you feel. Perhaps a little context may help though. Every month or so, for the past few, we've highlighted an editor who has done good work with featured content, sort of a "meet the writers" deal. Cas was our first, I think, in this run; I've linked to his (really nice) interview above. We've also interviewed Arsenikk and Mark Arsten in this run. On other occasions we've interviewed Lemurbaby, Wehwalt, JJ Harrison, Muhammad, and so on. It's meant to help promote the writer, sure, but also to (hopefully) interest readers in the different featured processes and make said processes more accessible... and thus get them to write more. The interviewees are limited to featured content creators because of the scope of the page. It's not meant to slight other writers. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 October newsletter
The 2012 WikiCup has come to a close; congratulations to, our 2012 champion! Cwmhiraeth joins our exclusive club of previous winners: (2007),  (2008),  (2009),  (2010) and  (2011). Our final standings were as follows:



Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.


 * The featured article award goes to, for four featured articles in the final round.
 * The good article award also goes to, for 19 good articles in the second round.
 * The list award goes to, for three featured lists in the final round.
 * The topic award goes to, for three good topics (with around 40 articles) in round 4.
 * The did you know award goes to, for well over 100 DYKs in the final round.
 * The news award goes to, for 10 in the news items in round 3.
 * The picture award goes to, for two featured pictures in round 2.
 * The reviewer award goes to both (14 reviews in round 1) and  (14 reviews in round 3).
 * Finally, for achieving an incredible bonus point total in the final round, and for bringing the top-importance article frog to featured status, a biostar has been awarded to.

Awards will be handed out in the coming days; please bear with us! This year's competition also saw fantastic contributions in all rounds, from newer Wikipedians contributing their first good or featured articles, right up to highly experienced Wikipedians chasing high scores and contributing to topics outside of their usual comfort zones. It would be impossible to name all of the participants who have achieved things to be proud of, but well done to all of you, and thanks! Wikipedia has certainly benefited from the work of this year's WikiCup participants.

Next year's WikiCup will begin in January. Currently, discussions and polls are open, and all contributions are welcome. You can also sign up for next year's competition. There will be no further newsletters this year, although brief notes may be sent out in December to remind everyone about the upcoming competition. It's been a pleasure to work with you all, and we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening COTM
From: Northamerica1000(talk) 01:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Mitt Romney
Hi Cas. Since you are an experienced FA reviewer, and now that you aren't fiendlishly busy with the Cup (congratulations / commiserations, by the way), I think the FAC on Romney might benefit from some more non-USA eyes on it. Things are getting a little wierd. It's a long article though, so... Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 02:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * PS: Always interesting reading some of these articles and looking at POV etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

TFA
soon --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Now THAT is the spirit of Wikipedia
A heart-warmingly pleasing response to my work at WT:TFAR. Thank you. --Dweller (talk) 09:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * de nada/prego :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Favor
Hi Cas, I was wondering if you'd be willing to take a quick look at something? I'm thinking about an FAC run for Ann Bishop (biologist) - I've incorporated pretty much everything I can find, but it's still quite short. If you don't have time, I totally understand! Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 22:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's plenty long enough for FAC. I will take a look soon. Sasata is pretty thorough, so feel confindent that he's given it a green cross so far....Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much! :) Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 03:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Sandy Protected
I see you protected Sandy, which is probably not a bad idea. However, I would ask that you undue the following edit. user:Casprings has been trying to insert this (some of which is his own original research and synthesis of material) into a currently exisitng article, (which he created and is likely to be deleted). In an attempt to game the system the editor is adding it to the Sandy article. Arzel (talk) 23:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It is very controversial to change the article once fully protected. Usually the protection is a halt and should in no way indicate a preferred version. It is Sunday daytime here and I just popped back for a moment. I will be back in a few hours but I will place a note at WP:AN Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Understandable. As a compromise I would suggest a change to the current version of the article under AfD as it has far less original research and synthesis of material.  Arzel (talk) 00:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Classical Cepheid variable, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pigott (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 04:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for St Luke's Church
Based on the talk for this DYK, I'm not really entitled to any credit since I didn't add to it after 11/1. Not sure if there's a way to "un-credit" me. - PKM (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Crucifixion and Last Judgement diptych
Thanks for reading about heaven and hell and tilting it over the edge. Good comments too! I have to get back into reviewing, but my wiki time seems to be shrinking a lot these days because of that thing called real life. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Your comment on RfAr
Cas, please quickly proofread the comment you just left on Mathsci's request. I think you may have an extra negative or something in the last sentence leaving it mean the opposite of what you intended. (Of course it might just be me misreading it.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No my bad, time for another visit to the metabolic clinic. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk at FAC
Hi Cas, there is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates, upon which subject I think it would be great if we all just got on and did something and didn't spin off into too many ruminations, and where I named you because someone else said you'd sent an email to Raul. Would be great if you'd stick your beak in. Cheers :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 00:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Rhododendron spinuliferum at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with db-g7, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 06:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Australian Christian Lobby
Hi there. I'm pinging you as an active Australian editor who I know is pretty experienced. There's stuff going on at Australian Christian Lobby and talk page that could use some attention. I don't have the energy for full-blown participation but thought perhaps a range of experienced editors could help sort it out as a team. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow, that is some pretty extensive discussion on the talk page. Where does one start. I've never even heard of this group.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

ACE2012
Hi, Casliber. I was wondering if you'd decided if you're going to run for the committee again. If you don't want to, I'd totally understand; I know it's a pain in the butt. But I'll definitely support you if you do decide to run. Also no pressure if you haven't decided yet one way or another. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the vote of confidence...I am juggling so many things at present....Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom
I hope you're running again. Have you decided? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Just arrived here to say the exact same thing. You've been conscientious, restrained, and steady, and your retirement from the committee would be the community's great loss. Rivertorch (talk) 06:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Me too, inasmuch as I have a clue :-) But then, I'd hate to distract you from reviews and content generation... hamiltonstone (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Fred Humphreys
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

References, templates
I agree that references should be accurate and complete as far as what is truly needed, i.e. as you put it "ship shape". However I don't see that using templates necessarily makes them any more so. If you look at professional journals there are certainly similarities in how references are presented, but no universal rule. As for "consensus", here at Wikipedia that's fairly ambiguous and may simply indicate a predilection to conformity. Remember, its fine to be serious, just don't be "serious" about being serious. J.H.McDonnell (talk) 13:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Look, one of the rules around here which comes across as being glib but has a point is What_Wikipedia_is_not. Believe it or not, my ideal of how this place should be has differences from what has happened. Over the past six years there has been a massive pruning of popular culture content due to a perception it is not encyclopedic. Now I argued at the time in the proper venues and some has remained if it can be adequately sourced, but there was no point in going overboard. There are some battles that are unwinnable and this is one of those. Now if you don't want to see material reverted (and hence waste your and other peoples' time and effort) just accept that this will happen. There are other things worth debating more. If this sounds a bit unfocussed it is very early here and I'm only just drinking my first coffee for the day.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Rhododendron spinuliferum
The DYK project (nominate) 08:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Betelgeuse
This is a note to let the main editors of Betelgeuse know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on November 26, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/November 26, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or his delegate, or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:



Betelgeuse is the eighth brightest star in the night sky and second brightest in the constellation of Orion, only rarely outshining Rigel. It is a distinctly reddish, semiregular variable star whose apparent magnitude varies between 0.2 and 1.2, the widest range of any first-magnitude star. Betelgeuse's name is thought to be derived from the Arabic يد الجوزاء Yad al-Jauzā' meaning "the Hand of al-Jauzā '" , i.e., Orion. It is classified as a red supergiant of spectral type M2Iab and is one of the largest and most luminous known stars. If positioned at the center of the Solar System, its surface would extend past the asteroid belt, possibly beyond the orbit of Jupiter, at least wholly engulfing Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars. Less than 10 million years old, Betelgeuse has evolved rapidly because of its high mass. Ejected from its birthplace in the Orion OB1 Association, this crimson runaway has been observed moving through the interstellar medium at a supersonic speed of 30 km/sec, creating a bow shock over 4 light-years wide. Now in a late stage of stellar evolution, the supergiant is expected to proceed through its life cycle before exploding as a type II supernova within the next million years. (Full article...) UcuchaBot (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC) precious Precious again! - As you received the award already (4 times) I gave it to your collaborator today. - Do you also miss PumpkinSky? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Shunzhi Emperor complete
Hi Casliber. I just finished writing the "Legacy" section of Shunzhi Emperor that you requested. You're welcome to let me know what you think on the FAC review page. Thank you! Madalibi (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! Madalibi (talk) 05:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

NGC 7841
You may want to take a look at this article. Every other source I've found lists NGC 7840 as the last NGC object. Since you are knowledgable in astronomy and are an administrator, I thought I'd let you know about this article. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * deleted. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
...for your assistance with Constance Stokes and for finding that great page from Deutscher and Hackett - i think that is the first still life of hers that i've seen. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It should pass FAC - hopefully some extra eyes will turn up beforehand...Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Leo Minor
Congratulations, it's a really nice article. --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * thanks! Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

FAC
I just reviewed your latest FAC candidate and will be watching for your reply. If you have time, I was wondering if you would mind looking over mine. Admittedly, mine is longer, so it's not a fair trade. But if you're up for it, I can always review your next short FAC. – Maky  « talk » 23:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I'll take a look (at both) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Request
Hi Cas,

I have been working on Entertainment since it came up as "Today's article for improvement" on 13 October. It is a core article and was quite weak and random before (IMO). I have been working on making such a big, universal topic into one concise, representative and coherent article. Do you think it is ready for GA or FA? If not, what should I do to get it there? If you have time, I would appreciate your opinion before I draw it to everyone's attention. My thinking about its structure and contents is on the Talk Page - I had to think it through as I went. It is now completely rewritten.

Thanks! Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting....I'll take a look. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow, listen, I think the appropriate next step is to list at Peer Review - it's a huge topic and I wouldn't know where to start...well, I would actually. The broad areas of comprehensiveness first and work down from there contentwise, maybe some philosophical and psychological aspects of entertainment should be slotted in too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I added some points and refs about psychology and philosophy. I'll ask the TAFI people to check the article over. Then after seeing what they say, I will go to Peer Review. Thanks! Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Email
Secret account 08:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * yup. got it. thinking. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok let me know. Thanks Secret account 01:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Omphalotus nidiformis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nuytsia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Omphalotus
The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hi Cas, just wanted to thank you for your support and help on the Debora Green FAC. Actually, on both of them! The source you helped me find was really useful for building up the pathology section of the article :) A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * pleasure to read and a pleasure to help :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Xerochrysum_bracteatum
Greetings, I just wanted to let you know that one of your FA's was suggested to be translated into Simple Wikipedia and I decided to give it a go. The link is here. I already started doing some of it and will continue to work on it but I wanted to invite you to participate since you were the one who got it to FA in EN. Kumioko (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Great! will take a look Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Omphalotus japonicus
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Query for you ...
here. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Also just wanted to say that while I strongly disagree with the motion you posted, I recognize that it was meant in good faith. --Rschen7754 06:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Information
I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My 76 Strat  (talk) 09:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Editor vandalizing article about drugs and drug testing
See Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents and Sockpuppet investigations/Curb Chain. It might require more investigation and clean-up from editors who specialize in this... Tijfo098 (talk) 11:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Given the SPI has closed, I'll look at some edits on their merits. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

A new sport peer review
Here. Tnx. ;-) --Kasper2006 (talk) 05:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening COTM
From: Northamerica1000(talk) 15:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

For finishing fourth in the 2012 WikiCup...



 * Heh, thanks Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Triple Crown
Hi Calisber. Do you still award Triple Crowns? There seems to be a huge backlog and I was beginning to worry that I'll end up never getting the award. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi - realistically anyone can do it (though not to give yourself one, obviously!). I will take a look soon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your help! Cheers. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Banksia incana
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Banksia dentata
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive edits
I don't usually take much interest in the actions of other editors and just get on with my own thing. However I found that editor Ornithodiez had removed some content (without explanation) from Amphibian at this rather critical point in its FAC process. So I had a look at what else that editor had been doing recently and found that he had done several things that I thought disruptive. In the article Neoaves he had removed a well-referenced cladogram dating from 2012 that another editor had added and that seemed relevant to me so I undid his edit. This was to no avail as the cladogram has since been removed again. Knowing that birds are one of your interests, I wondered whether you thought his edits disruptive? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me take a look. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

FYI
You have been mentioned at WP:AN (not by me). Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Look Mickey
Could you please Strike resolved issues.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Amphibian FAC
In your busy schedule, would you have time to look at my Amphibian FAC? I note that the most critical of those who have previously commented has been Samsara and that this editor has not been active in Wikipedia since November 27th. I believe the points he raised have been addressed but he has not reversed his original rather vague criticisms. Amphibians may not be your main interest, but would you be able to have a look at the article? The way things are going at FAC I fear it may fail as there are a fair number of comments, no outright opposition but few supporters. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments on the Amphibian FAC. You struck out all but one of them and I have now rewritten that paragraph a little more. Was there anything else that you thought needed improvement? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources for paleoontology
Hi. If this interests you, your thoughts would be very welcome: Reliable sources/Noticeboard --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Melaleuca nodosa
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Stotts Island Nature Reserve
The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Capparis lasiantha
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Nice job
Congrats to you for the promotion of Banksia aquilonia to FA.--MONGO 14:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Goodenia paniculata
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Mauna Loa
Hey, Mauna Loa still a work in progress but the Geology section is just about done, at least: can you take a look and tell me what you think? Thanks, Res Mar 04:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alloxylon flammeum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Morphology (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
— ΛΧΣ  21  22:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Lomatia myricoides
Hello! Your submission of Lomatia myricoides at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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! Rosiestep (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Angophora hispida
Materialscientist (talk) 02:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Eucalyptus cambageana
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

New Boletaceae genera
Would you be able to send me this? Gotta keep up with the times! Sasata (talk) 04:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hah, funny you should alert me to this one as I was just looking at it a couple of days ago...gimme a sec. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks much! Sasata (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Tool use
This gave me a laugh: Accept for review of tool use, which is one of our core functions. (I added a link to the quote to explain how I first read the statement.) Guettarda (talk) 17:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Email
Secret account 04:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

To ArbCom or not to ArbCom, this is the question
Hi,

Your misfortune of being at the top of the ArbCom list is the reason I am writing to you, though you are also [mis]fortunate in not appearing in the Arab-Israeli/Palestine-Israel articles disputes.

And, I'm not asking you to get involved, but simply seek advice.

Recently in a verbal conversation during a discussion on the ethnic strife in Syria, I was informed that neither Arabs nor Jews are considered indigenous to West Asia by Wikipedia.

I found this a most curious situation, and in consulting some friends and some books, and the existing discussion on the article talk page, I boldly edited the list.

The basic problem I found with the existing discussion on the talk page is that it disallowed inclusion of the Jews because:
 * a) Jews were not considered indigenous based on the definition of indigenousness used in Wikipedia which requires the population to be "non-dominant ... of society."
 * b) if Jews are to be added, so should the Palestinians be added
 * c) Jewish genetics show them to be far from pure as a population (a sort of Nazi in reverse argument!)
 * d) A claim that a consensus had been arrived at, but none is evident or cited

Other aberrant notions have been put forward by some, such as that the idea of indigenousness was unknown in the ancient times (aboriginal is derived from Roman Latin!), or that diasporic populations have no claim to place of origin.

The article itself is now protected based on the ArbCom 2008 decision for handling Israel/Palestinian articles, though in fact the indigenousness of any given population is in no way affected by the contemporary political disputes, and ought to be evaluated in their own right.

My problem is as follows. There seems little argument against adding Arabians/Arabs (changed from Bedouin), but...

"Jews" is an imposed dasporic name applied to a given ethnicity, which happens to have an ethno-religious identity and culture. As a contemporary people, within the culture, they by an large identify themselves as Yisra'el with the exception of those members of the communities who can identify their affiliation with the tribe of Levi and its sub-family of Kohens/Cohens (a priestly function in the culture). In editing the entry, I provided reliable sources and the sources of this cultural division in the core "Jewish" text, the Torah otherwise known as the Hebrew Bible. The last is not considered 'reliable' for Wikipedia, but in this case it is the very source of identity of the Yisra'el! To claim it 'unreliable' is to not only deny identity to all Yisra'el, but to also disenfranchise their cultural heritage and impose atheism on them in one swift pronouncement! Surely this would go somewhat beyond the editing of an encyclopaedia?!

I added the entry Israelites, which is the English name given to the "biblical" Yisra'el (logically referring to cultural record) on which the Yisra'el (this is singular and plural in Hebrew) base their claims of originating in the Land of Israel. In fact Wikipedia uses four (!) different words to identify the people (culturally Am Yisra'el, lit. People Israel): Israelites, Hebrews, Jews and Israelis, which must be some sort of a record. Note that the state of Israel is one of the few modern states named after the people who claim indigenousness to the land, and the basis on which the original late 19th century "Zionism" (return to Zion (Ger.)/ Tzion (Heb.)) was based on, the term Tzion (2 Samuel 5:7) having been used to designate the area of Jerusalem where the sacked Jebusite fortress stood, and later became a metonym for King Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem.

The entry was summarily removed, and an edit war invented by User:Moxy when another user reverted the removal, etc.

I tried to discuss, but the user who did the original removal simply removed the discussion from his/her talk page. The article talk 'discussion' then degenerated into something utterly devoid of logic and facts, refusal to consider the culture, and claiming the article needed 'protection', which in effect prevents restoring my edits although no actual fault with my Israelite entry was identified aside from not conforming to the claimed 'definitive' definition of "indigenousness" (there isn't one!), and using 'unrelible biblical sources' (which I did not!). The entire thing is basically a "I did not hear that" or "I don't want to hear that" sort of 'discussion'.

As I see it, someone with some serious administrative authority and a fairly healthy dose of impartiality has to step in.

For a start, the definition of indigenousness has to be inclusive of those ethnicities that ARE dominant in their locales, regions and nation-states, or even internationally. I had added Arabians/Arabs, originating in the Arabian Peninsula and dominant in several regional states, but this was also removed. Interestingly no one has protested that the Han Chinese do not get to be indigenous to PRC, or the Thai to Thailand.

On the other hand the list includes (for example) Crimean Karaites: Crimean Peninsula in Southern Ukraine who also claim to be Yisra'el, but practice Judaism differently, and Crimean Tatars: Crimean Peninsula in Southern Ukraine who originate in Mongolia! Indigenousness does mean a place of origin NOT a list of national/geographic minorities, and the list is suppose to serve as an ethnographic and anthropological reference, not a cause for political wrangling. Whoever started the article clearly lacked a solid idea of what the purpose of the article is intended to be. The definition sited in the introduction, ""those ethnic groups that were indigenous to a territory prior to being incorporated into a national state, and who are politically and culturally separate from the majority ethnic identity of the state that they are a apart of" assumes the indigenous populations hadn't migrated or were forced out from their genous lands! In this it resets the historic clocks for many peoples to at best the late-colonial period! Not much of anthropology as far as I'm concerned, but people in the discipline would be welcome to the discussion.

In any case, I used Crock8/Crock81 in editing (the change is an unrelated long story), but here I post as an IP as I do not wish to be interrupted in any discussion with you from editors already 'engaged' on the article talk page. I'm sorry for the length and I appreciate the time you spent reading and replying. 220.238.42.127 (talk) 07:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Aah, right - I see this and this. Need to digest this.....being one account (rather than an IP) is helpful. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "Wikipedia" decides sourcing rules, not content. The question of "indigenous peoples" is decided by usage in reliable sources, not by word origin or the way you or I or Cas can logic things out. Guettarda (talk) 13:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * My gut feeling without being familiar with the use of the term in the middle east is that given the history I suspect it serves little purpose and I have not heard it used anyway. Have to see what the sources do/say...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * From how I have seen it used (a few times) I'm pretty sure you're right. Obviously the Israeli claim is based on the fact that they were there originally (or were promised that land by God). The Palestinian response is that they are, in fact, the descendants of the Canaanites, so in fact they were there before the Hebrews (to which comes the response "no you're not, you're Arabs who migrated here in Ottoman times. To which the response is "but you're Khazars who converted to Judaism". And so on.) But accepted definitions of indigenous peoples usually emphasise colonisation and disempowerment. Guettarda (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * agreed. My free time has been patchy lately and have been concentrating on "relaxing" (i.e. botanical etc.) content first....Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, its not really about Israelis or Arabs, etc....in fact, its more botanical! But, I agree on the sources. For this reason I wrote here (long) and here where people get to find out the 'roots' of indigenousness in the study of flora Crock81 (talk) 06:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The origin of the word indigenous in botany is entirely irrelevant to the concept of Indigenous peoples which is not the same as peoples who are indigenous to a region. Just like the etymology of black is irrelevant for the article on blackbirds, because that article isn't just about birds that are black. You spend a lot of time lobbying on talkpages of administrators and arbitrators but very little time producing sources that use your expansive definition of the term "Indigenous peoples". Is that because there aren't any? I think so. And yes, please take it to arbcom so we can get restrictions on this kind of lunacy and so we can get rid of pov-pushers like you. I am sure conservapedia will be happy to accomodate you turning their article on indigenous peoples into a testament to the natural right of the Israelis to their land. I am not about to let that happen here.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Again you are wrong on several counts, but...the place to engage on these issues is not on this talk page.
 * I will only again point to your selective reading. Far from 'lobbying', my second line here is "I'm not asking you to get involved, but simply seek advice." Crock81 (talk) 12:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, its use in flora aligns with how it is commonly used for people as well - in areas where there are a clearly defined people who've been there for a long time and were in a tribal culture of some sort in contact with a colonial or imperial power/nation - Oz, NZ, polynesia, Malaysia, Japa (Ainu), NW territories etc. The history just strikes me as way too muddled for the term to be applied with any degree of objectivity whatsoever in the middle east. But Crock81, I don't get what point you're trying to make. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Casliber, that is wrong, being an indigenous people is not about simply having been there a long time, noone calls Germans, Danes or even Irish peoples indigenous peoples even though there are no known history of their territories having been occupied by other ethnic groups (you are on the right track with the allusion to conmtact with colonial or other imperial political forces). And yes it is complicated, not just in the Middle East, but all over the place. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not surprised that I am wrong - my knowledge of the term with people is around lay-level I think. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not faulting you, I just couldn't it stand uncontradicted since Crock81's MO seems to be lobbying people in "power" in order to make them express anything that can be interpreted as agreement with his version of things which. It would make more sense for him to present some sources in support of that version of things at the talkpage if you ask me.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

But, your appreciation of botany appears to be professional level, so lets go there as I rather enjoy plants myself, and even failed to save a pine from the Waverley council once.

Current definition used in the article Indigenous peoples, if used in an article Indigenous plants would go something like this - '''Any plants that are either rare, over-harvested, not appreciated because they seemingly have no commercial value, or endangered with extinction due to a lack of suitable water source, and subject to encroachment by other dominant species, are indigenous to the land where they are are currently found. All other plants are not indigenous.''' Moreover, we are not interested in the history of the said species discovery, their relationship in the evolutionary tree to other species, the description of their structure and reproduction or place in the ecosystem. All we are interested in is establishing they are indigenous, and protecting them. Any plant that fit this description 20 years ago, but has since recovered and is no longer rare, over-harvested, has a commercial value, obtained a water source, with the dominant species in the land eradicated, are to be removed from the indigenous plant species list. So this is not indigenous to Australia. Oh, and by the way, no botanist is to be consulted on the indigenousness of the species since the status of indigenousness is established by law, and protected through a political process neither of which botanists know very much about so why bother them. And, the article only needs references that come from major international law and international politics organisations. References from works by small time university botany researchers that spent 30 years trying to understand the ecosystem of those massive Siberian pine forests are unnecessary, because the Siberian pines are not indigenous to Siberia.

This is essentially what I'm up against.

As for Maunus' suggestion, I have already seen what happens in the Talk page, notably the last time there was an 'RfC' to determine the article scope. If asking an impartial admin to 'keep watch' over the application of the Wikipedia rules and guidelines during my editing of the article is "lobbying", than so be it, but I'm not asking you that, given being on the ArbCom probably keeps you busy enough. It is the same message I delivered to Deskana Crock81 (talk) 02:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Be that as it may, that would be what the article would say if it were a botany article. We'd follow the sources. Guettarda (talk) 02:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Be that as it may" is a cliché that means 'although its true, I ignore the truth of it'. Should I continue reading your input?
 * Guettarda, you missed the points.
 * A) Other sources are not allowed because any expansion to the article that doesn't fit the pseudo-definition in the lead, would be removed, reliable sources or not, a la "Be that as it may" 'mechanism', and had been before on numerous occasions. Consequently, the change to the pseudo-definition to widen the scope of the article has been a cow of a job, with Ubikwit also having one.
 * B) Wouldn't you agree the article would be a sham as far as botany is concerned? Exactly what sort of encyclopaedia do you think this is? Crock81 (talk) 06:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, it's a cliche that means "whether what you say is true or not, it's irrelevant. But that's what I said days ago. The whole bit about sources not being allowed is predicated on the idea that Wikipedia is some sort of a conspiracy. If you haven't tried WP:RSN, then do so. If you tried it and failed to get support for your sources...then move on to something else, you're highly unlikely to "win". Guettarda (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * But it isn't about plants, it is about people. And there is a very large literature that uses the current definition of indigenous peoples, and so far you have not shown a single work that uses your expansive and vacuous definition under which every people on earth would be an indigenous people.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Bloody hell, my head is spinning. I don't agree that indigenousness implies some sort of sacrosanctity botanically - a plant indigenous to our fair Sydney basin is Pittosporum undulatum well recognised as being invasive...even in areas where it is native (!). Congrats on saving the pine, I am sure the Yellow-tailed Black Cockatoos are feeling much the better. Wading through I am getting a clearer idea. I will try to read the RfC a bit later. Very soon I will be a mere editor again. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Guettarda, I don't need the WP:RSN because the edit which Maunus removed had a fully WP:RS-compliant source attached. It just didn't comply with Maunus' definition of what should be in the article. Its the WP:Maunus guideline I can't win. Get support for my sources?! You mean I need to prove that a definition produced by UNESCO, a major agency within the ECOSOC is a valid source?! I'm not looking for a "win", but for "edit". If Wikipedia can't serve me in this, it is an embarrassment to Humanity. Guettarda, with all due respect for your advice, I didn't ask for it. If you want to offer it, please familiarise yourself with the dispute at hand by visiting the various pages and contribute there.
 * Maunus, I rather imagined this a private consultation . Plants and people share the same biosphere, and it seems to me the logic that applies to indigenousness of a floral population can be applied to a human population also. However, I would respectfully ask that you also stay out of this discussion.
 * Undo your reversion and you will see the source of my definition, adopted by UNESCO. so far as I know, this is the only definition so far adopted by any UN organisation on the subject of indigenous peoples, but please prove me wrong. As for your suggestion that under this definition "every people on earth would be an indigenous people", it isn't true, but only your assumption.
 * Pittosporum undulatum is indigenous to the Australian east coast, invasive to the rest of the Australia outside the east coast, and colonising to the rest of the World. The Cadigal band are indigenous to the area south of Port Jackson which stretches from South Head to Petersham. They are invasive to Mt Druitt and Penrith. If any significant number settled elsewhere outside Australia, they would be colonising.
 * While wading through the RfC, please also look at my list of challenges to its conduct.
 * You misunderstood, I didn't save the pine; it became pine chips. The church kindy which was located under it (was costing them to sweep the needles) claimed danger from falling cones! The Council denied me to table evidence of 0 threat from cones, but decreed the kindy plant two natives (of course the benefit of a potential 80yo pine vs two natives is dubious), but I'm still waiting on the natives five years later. The pines were planted by ANZACs returning from France. There are quite a few still standing, so Council claimed it wasn't a unique tree. The possum who also used that pine relocated to the next further pine.
 * Although there are seven bird spices around my house (not counting the chooks and pigeons!) I have only seen a pair of the Yellow-tailed Black Cockatoos a couple of times, though whites are regulars from their Centennial occupation. The problem is that the crows used that pine and the open space below it (other side of the house), but now they are in the playground, all eight of them with two magpies! Since they relocated to directly in front of my home office, working is only possible after I make physical threats. I have however purchased a book on crows, and will try to figure out how to convince them to seek other recreational areas. The natives are Rainbow Lorikeets ('Boys&Girls' - feed off a feeder), White Cokies (the Gang - steal everything), a family of Ibis (4-5 years now) and Kookies (the Happy Family - five this year), the only nesting natives are a couple of Noisy Miners (Mr & Mrs Agro) who have called the area home for almost nine years now Crock81 (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am posting here so as to make it clear that I am respectfully declining your request for me to stay out of discussions in any wikipedia spaces. Your theory of the fundamental compatibility of plants and aminals is very interesting, but seems to be somewhat complicated by the fact that ethnic groups are not species but social constructions, and of course by the fact that most people don't have photosynthesis and most plant don't build states. And for some reason I don't think the draft proposal from " International Meeting of Experts on Intangible Cultural Heritage, Establishment of a Glossary, UNESCO Headquarters, Paris, 10-12 June 2002 TER/CH/2002/WD/4" written by a "group of Dutch experts" is the best possible source. Also I don't see any suggestion that the definition used by that group of experts has any kind of official status whatsoever. You have been obfuscating again. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ahem, we don't have crows in Sydney but Australian Ravens...and sometimes some Little Ravens..... ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You know, I doubt most people would know the difference since it seems to me the prominent throat hackles are not so much greater than the European ravens, and getting close enough to see the grey bases of its black feathers is a challenge, However, I will add the Aussie crow to the Aussie crawl for the trivia games :-) Crock81 (talk) 07:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Geography helps - also learniing crow/raven calls - see here vs here....and regarding the other stuff....don't be so reckless, throw down your gun....cheers. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You base your advice on nonsensical lyrics? So what you are saying is that although studying geographic origins of any species, flora or fauna, warrants comparison between identifying indigenous plants and indigenous peoples, I should just submit to pressure of Wikipedia editors that want to politicise an article with a single-minded agenda? Thanks, but no thanks Crock81 (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So you get to decide when we are light-hearted and when we are serious. Sorry for my presumption on the issue. I think the first thing is to look at Talk:Indigenous_peoples/Archive_3 and how many folks have opined there, make a case for it not being representative and open a new RfC. Keep comments short and to-the-point as other editors are discouraged by large amounts of text. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


— ΛΧΣ  21  is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message. — ΛΧΣ  21  05:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * thanks! Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Obsolete medical terms
Category:Obsolete medical terms, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Holiday cheer

 * thanks! Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Festive Greetings
Hi. I wish you and your family a blessful christmas feast. Joy! Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 11:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message.
 * ....and a happy roleplaying Xmas to you too :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy Festivus

 * (chuckle) :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Lomatia myricoides
Gatoclass 00:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

500 DYK

 * Singing your praises, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a tad addicted are we? ;) Res Mar 00:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

A thank and a question
Hey, thanks for the kidn message at my talk :) Merry Christmas for you too. Also, a question: I'd like to help at Triple Crown. How can I do? Should I just be bold and review and award the crowns? Or there is any kind of requirement/initiation process? Regards. — ΛΧΣ  21  07:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Helping out there would be fantastic. It is supposed to be fun and anyone is welcome to check and give out awards and update the awards page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yay! I'd be very happy to help out and give the awards. But, can you check my nom please? I can't do that myself :) — ΛΧΣ  21  00:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alloxylon pinnatum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Morphology (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


 TheGeneralUser  (talk)  is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Hello Casliber! Wishing you a very Happy Merry Christmas :)  TheGeneralUser  (talk)  13:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

..
Seasons greetings to you and yours Dougweller (talk) 14:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy holidays


Some Christmas traditions are very difficult to explain. Kind of like Wikipedia policies. Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2013. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement. For those of a more traditional inclination, I offer this rendition of my favourite carol. Best, Risker (talk) 15:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

X-mas
Thx for the funny pic!^^ In Germany it's tradition to eat goose roast with red cabbage and (potato) dumplings at holy eve. ;) Mmmmhh... yummy!^^ Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 18:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Ytterbium GAN
I think I've finished addressing your concerns. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Even more belated
Happy boxing day! We actually had a rib of beef washed down with Chateauneuf du Pape, and very nice too. Turkey today. My brother sent me a whole Iberian ham as a Christmas present, so we are in danger of disappearing in a mountain of cold meat. <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  07:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

GAN heads up
Cas, am alerting you to the renomination of Dana boomer's nice little Kerry Bog Pony article for GA. If you can alert a good reviewer that, though I just reposted today, it has been languishing out there for a while - I would be grateful - It was GAN nominated about a month ago and just now failed, but I think it is because the reviewer (MathewTownsend) has issues with me personally and sought bogus grounds for the fail. (Long story, but the reviewer and I have had difficulties since early in 2012, diffs on request but you really don't want to go through that looking glass). The article is primarily (almost entirely) Dana's effort, I only helped during the review because I noticed that Dana wasn't around much, but my involvement seems to have incensed the reviewer, so... I really think the article is more than GA class, just needs a fast but solid re-review by someone who knows what they are doing. You've helped with this sort of thing before, so am asking your help again. Montanabw (talk) 19:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ok. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ping again, the person who failed the GA has now been blocked as a sockpuppet of Mattisse so double good reason that the GA Fail was a bad faith fail. Dana hasn't been around hardly at all since this, I feel bad for her; any way to get the GA review going again for a pass?   Montanabw (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Request
Hi. I wrote an article about the high official Inykhnum: Here. Before I release it, I please you to read over it and help me with grammar and spellings. It would be a great help to me. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Common Starling
Hi Cas, Cwmhiraeth and I are starting on raising Common Starling to FAC. The article has a number of existing references to HANZAB which neither of us have. If you have volume 7 would you mind checking the refs? I don't doubt the reliability, but text gets changed and there may be an Antipodean factor we haven't spotted, We have barely started, so no rush. Thanks <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  14:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Will be able to check on thursday. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to you
First thanks for the xmas greetings and a belated reply and best wishes for the holidays and New Year in return. Second, I thought I'd mention that a few weeks ago (when I really wasn't editing at all), Brothers Grimm had a spectacular page view spike and got through with very few edits or talk page comments. Had I been on my game (which I haven't been at all in 2012 for RL reasons) I would have realized 2012 was a 200th anniversary - but all that said, because of the Core Contest the article appears to be in fairly good shape, despite no bronze star or green circle. So, just wanted to mention that - it's something for you to be proud of as the year draws to a close. We often forget that what we're doing is for the readers. Best in the New Year. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was an amazing spike! Thanks for reminding me -I have to write a report on what articles improved and how. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Outreach?
Hi Cas. One of m:Wiki Med's main activities will be outreach to academic and professional organisations. I was wondering if you might be interested in making a presentation to an Australian medical school or two, if we can line it up. You would be provided with videos of and slideshows from other presentations by Doc James, RexxS and others, and they, Bluerasberry and others would be very willing to talk it over with you, I'm sure.

If you're not keen, I think James would love the opportunity to visit Australia, but if you are interested, I think it would be great to have you involved. Perhaps you and he could do a couple together.

It's early days, but I just thought I'd sound you out. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I meant to ring Bluerasberry...dang being busy.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 starting soon
Hi there; you're receiving this message because you have previously shown interest in the WikiCup. This is just to remind you that the 2013 WikiCup will be starting on 1 January, and that signups will remain open throughout January. Old and new Wikipedians and WikiCup participants are warmly invited to take part in this year's competition. (Though, as a note to the more experienced participants, there have been a few small rules changes in the last few months.) If you have already signed up, let this be a reminder; you will receive a message with your submissions' page soon. Please direct any questions to the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! J Milburn 19:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Problem
- User destroys the new infoboxes for the pharaoh, see as example at Khufu. There was a clear agreement within the Egypt´s project to use the new boxes. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 13:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Sigh - that discussion is a wall of text, but I see the supportive tone. Need to revisit this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. At least some help. I reported the edit-warrior (who had already received blockings for his behavior), but I received only could shoulders by admnistrators. As if I could know where to beg for help and report such behavior elsewhere! The problem is that GOP knows about the project´s discussion but continues his actions... Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Applied behavior analysis
Hi Casliber,

I wanted to know if you could reply to my comment on the talk page to merge the Behavior modification article into the Applied behavior analysis article, as ABA is the new term for Behavior mod.

See here: Talk:Applied behavior analysis.

Thanks!

ATC. Talk 14:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I replied to your comment and have two sources (that I showed you) which verify what I am saying. Thanks. ATC . Talk 22:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Resolved the issue. I found a journal explaining the controversy over the terms. See here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2223172/. It states as follows: "A New Science? [section] Perhaps there is a tendency to draw pejorative contrasts between PBS and ABA in order to bolster claims about the status of PBS as a new and distinct science or discipline (e.g., Bambara et al., 1994; E. Carr, 1997; E. Carr et al., 2002; Knoster et al., 2003; Sisson, 1992). There may be disagreement among PBS leaders on this point. On the one hand, for example, Horner (2000) stated that 'Positive behavior support is not a new approach. … [It is] the application of behavior analysis to the social problems created by such behaviors as self-injury' (p. 97). He further stated, 'There is no difference in theory or science between positive behavior support and behavior modification. These are the same approach with different names. If any difference exists, it is in the acceptance [by PBS] of much larger outcomes and the need to deliver the global technology that will deliver these outcomes' (p. 99). Other writers have referred to PBS as an 'extension' of applied behavior analysis (e.g., Turnbull et al., 2002, p. 377). ATC . Talk 22:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi did you ask? I still haven't got any feedback on on WP:MED, WP:Psychology, or WP:Education yet about merging the articles. Thanks. ATC . Talk 04:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I asked one psychologist who thought ABA was a form of BM - will ask some others to get a more global view. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Some books say that. I do not why. Ask about the Positive Behavior Support (PBS) thing as well. ATC . Talk 23:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, Have you asked others yet? ATC . Talk 19:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Xmas/summer holidays mean there are tumbleweeds blowing through work at the moment (i.e. very quiet...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I see...Actually I spoke to someone I know who has a Ph.D. in Behavior Analysis and Clinical Psychology. He is also an author and works with autistic children as well as people with sexual disorders and to help some people organize themselves in business (See here: Organizational behavior management (OBM)), and has spoken at various press conferences. He said anyone who still uses the term "behavior modification" is using "outdated termonoligy" and that no one has called ABA "behavior modification" in years if they kept up with the literature. In addition, he said Cognitive Behavior Therapy commonly used ABA in the old days which is why they use to call it "Cognitive-Behavior Modification". He said some forms of CBT still incorporate ABA which is known as Functional analytic psychotherapy and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy. But it is primarily two different forms of Behavior therapy. ATC . Talk 08:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ATC I don't doubt you and am appreciative of the steps you've taken to investigate. Thanks for the update. Still waiting for folks to get back to work....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply and enjoy the holidays! ATC . Talk 22:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey don't mean to be a nudge but am wondering if you've gotten any updates. Take care. ATC . Talk 04:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The senior psychologist on our ward thought it was only to do with specific therapy for autism, but she conceded she wasn't hugely familiar with the area. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. I spoke to a psychology college professor about it and his wife is a behaviorist. He said, ABA, Behavior Mod., and PBS are all the same thing. And some people still use the word "behavior mod.", as I saw in some scientific journals (from about a year ago). Most of the time PBS, a form of ABA, is used in schools (SchoolWide Positive Behavior Intervention Support or SWPBIS) or for autism treatment (Early intensive behavioral intervention). Although they are all the same thing, ABA/PBS usually refer to education; although, technically speaking they are all the same thing. The Behavior Analyst Certification Board website only uses the terms "ABA" (including PBS) and "Experimental Analysis of Behavior" (for research studies), the two are subtypes of Behavior Analysis. If you search the website, they don't even use the word "behavior modification". The only other popular ABA sub terms - excluding education - are "Organizational Behavior Management" (OBM, to stay organized at a work site) and Clinical behavior analysis (CBA). *(Note this is just an update of what I learned, heard about, and discovered. I don't think most people understand it. In everyday conversation though, people using the term "ABA" are referring to the early intervention used for autism including "Discrete Trial Teaching" (DTT)) ATC . Talk 21:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:MEDGA2013
I started WP:MEDGA2013 and I included what you said about delirium. I've clarified my intent at that page and I wondered if you intended to try to get the article up to GA status or not. Best! Biosthmors (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes I do. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)