| Revision as of 05:48, 1 October 2009 editSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 edits →Question: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:13, 1 October 2009 edit undoCasliber (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators200,930 edits I told arbcom in the last two days. I can't remember exactly when he told me but it was several months ago at least.Next edit → | ||
| Line 639: | Line 639: | ||
| Hi Cas, could you say when exactly you learned that The undertow was back as Law, and when exactly you told the ArbCom? <font color="blue">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font></sup></small> 05:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC) | Hi Cas, could you say when exactly you learned that The undertow was back as Law, and when exactly you told the ArbCom? <font color="blue">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font></sup></small> 05:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :I told arbcom in the last two days. I can't remember exactly when he told me but it was several months ago at least. ] (] '''·''' ]) 06:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 06:13, 1 October 2009
More unIDed fungiG'day Cas, I've been frogging over the past few days, and the fungi season has definitely started! I have a coral fungi that I thought you would like for wiki, plus I also have a puff ball which I will upload later, will leave a message here when it is uploaded. Saw lots of fungi over the last few days, but only photographed the really interesting ones as I was using my small memory card, and wanted to leave some space for frogs. http://www.flickr.com/photos/52507572@N00/465979784/?rotated=1&cb=1177065560324 Thanks. --liquidGhoul 10:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Nomenclature of fungiHey there. I recently stumbled across an issue of Nova Hedwigia Beheift titled "the genera of fungi" (or was it agaricaceae?). It's filled to the brink with mind-numbing nomenclatural discussions of all the genera ever described (I think, anyway). Would it be any use if I looked up the specific ref or any specific genera? Circeus 00:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
LOTS of "per" in citation here. See
A first incarnation from Tentamen dispositionis methodicae Fungorum 65. 1797 is cited as devalidated: "Introduced to cover three groups already previously distinguished by Persoon (in Tent. 18. 1797) under Agaricus L., but at that time not named. It is worth stressing that was not mentioned."
Donk concludes the earliest valid type is A. muscaria, the species in Hooker, adding that he'd personally favor A. citrina.
Phew! Circeus 18:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
ndashesHTML ndashes suck. If you're on a Windows box, you can get a real ndash (i.e. unicode) by holding down the ALT key and typing 0150 on the numeric keypad. Hesperian 11:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
PorkLOL, I love your sense of humour. Maimonedes is a good reference. The reality is that Islam takes food restrictions from Judaism; and Christianity doesn't have any restriction (courtesy of three references in the New Testament). The reason why pork should be restricted (along with many other things) is not given explicitly in the Hebrew Bible, hence Bible commentators have been offering guesses since ancient times. My own favourite, however, is Mary Douglas, wife of Louis Leakey, daughter of a Lutheran pastor. Her theory is excellent, based on her cultural anthropological observations, with a decent feel for how Biblical text works. It's rather an abstract theory though. Anyway, I'll see if I can manage a literature review of dietry restrictions in the ANE, especially if there's anything explicit about pork. Don't think I'll find a reference for "why" the pork taboo is in place, though, if it's documented, I'd have read about that in commentaries. Perhaps a clay tablet with the answer has been destroyed in only the last few years during the "troubles" in Iraq. :( Alastair Haines (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Spotted this. I'll look for a ref to the Maimonides comment. The normal teaching is that pork is no more or less offensive to Jews than any other forbidden meat (dog, horse etc) or forbidden part of kosher animal (blood, Gid Hanasheh etc). The pig (NB pig, not pork - an important distinction which is relevant for the Maimonides comment too, I note) is "singled out" because it alone of the animals that have one of the two "signs" (it has split hooves but doesn't chew the cud) lies down with its legs sticking out. Most quarapeds have their legs folded under them. There's a midrashic lesson to be learned there, apparently, that the pig is immodestly and falsely proclaiming its religious cleanliness, when it is not. Anyway, that said, I'll look into the M comment - he was quite ahead of his time in terms of medical knowledge (check his biog). And NB my OR/POV antennae buzzed when I read that little section. --Dweller (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Have found good stuff, including online version of Maimonides text. I'll dump it here for you to use as you wish.
So, Maimonides argues "pork contains more moisture than necessary , and too much of superfluous matter", whatever that means! More importantly, the "principal reason" is that if you keep pigs, you end up with a dirty and unhealthy environment. Important note: Maimonides was writing from Islamic Egypt at the time, which is why he mentions "as may be seen at present in the country of the Franks." (ie France) The comments about the pig's habit of lying with its legs outstretched come from Midrash Vayikra Rabba (ch 13) where it is mentioned as part of an elaborate metaphor, but not in connection with any reason for particularly abhorring the creature. Hope that helps. --Dweller (talk) 09:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC) Greek proofing on WikisourceHi Cas, Would you mind bringing your knowledge of Greek to bear on these three Wikisource pages for me please: , , ? It should only take five minutes I think. If you've got a Wikisource or unified account, you can correct any errors you find; else you can let me know and I'll fix them. Hesperian 02:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Easy peasy you say... nearly all of the yellow pages on this work contain Greek. s:la:Liber:De assensione Stoici quid senserint.djvu. If you could verify even a few of them, especially p.20, that would be fantastic. John Vandenberg 15:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi again, we have a category for them now on English Wikisource: s:Category:Pages with missing Greek characters. The ones in the "Page:" namespace are accompanied by pagescans; the EB1911 pages usually have a link to the pagescan on the talk page. Cheers, John Vandenberg 23:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC) Sandwich TernI see you've taken it on, good work. The display and vision bits at Crested Tern apply for all the genus. The opening sentence isn't fully supported by Bridge - although Elegant is very close, Lesser Crested isn't, other than being in the same genus. I won't abandon this article (after all, one good ... aaaarrrggh, it's catching), but let me know if there's anything specific esp from BWP, Olsen or Harrison, where I have the books. Now, must be time for a couple of slices of bread with some meat in. 10:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Australian figsBeen a bit of a spike in editing the few days... Guettarda (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
UFOINFOHi, a site called UFOINFO is used in multiple articles as reference. Do you think it should be considered RS? I cannot see any editorial board or anything by which it can be considered RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Banksia sphaerocarpa var. pumilioFloraBase has an entry for this, but no other information. Know anything about it? Hesperian 04:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I guess you might want to have a look at this too. Hesperian 11:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC) A book you might enjoyIt's all about flowers ... well, err, kind of.
She's a senior tutor in philosophy at Cambridge, written several very entertaining and informative books related to the history of science, probably including her doctorate. But I expect you know of her and this book already. I would have thought it a must read for the Banks-ia Study Group leader. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 11:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Huia - suggestionsRe this:
This will be hard to fix since I don't have the book Kotare used - and I wouldn't want to either, probably, since a pet hate of mine is anything which lumps traditions from different regions together without giving the sources. I would suggest getting rid of all of this:
We can also add a supporting reference from this page: and could perhaps still add the reference no . Hope this helps Kahuroa (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC) CockatoosWell if there were a single source I would not have put it where I put it. We cannot (at present) put the whole thing in the article. But we can add some of the info. Here's how: Every time we cite a cladistic study, we automatically accept arguments from parsimony. This is not immediately obvious to the novice reader, but if would not accept arguments from parsimony, each and every cladistic analysis is baseless mumbo-jumbo. We could not argue like this if this were Conservapedia or if we'd subscribe to intelligent design - a Creator could invoke any trait out of thin air, without precedent in the ancestors. Whereas if you accept the premises of cladistic studies as valid, it is automatically accepted that anything that is frequent in the basal and rare in the advanced lineages of a clade is presumed to be the ancestral character state because "it is more parsimonious" to assume a single origin than multiple origins. So we can take all the phylogenetics papers that have been published - as we'll do anyway - and arrive at a consensus phylogeny. And we can reference the appearance of all cockatoos with a single source - Juniper/Parr, HBW, Forshaw/Cooper for example (I would not prefer HBW here, as the other sources are more detailed) and cross-refer them to the consensus phylogeny. And then we can say "It is notable that among the basal lineages, the following plumage patterns are generally seen: ... This suggests that it is most parsimonious that such plumage was already present in the last common ancestor of all living cockatoos." We could cite some phylogenetics textbook's part on character evolution for this, but we don't cite a physics textbook's part on gravity either any time some article mentions something falling down. Taking this, we can note that certain plumage patterns are seen in (almost) all the basal lineages and only lost in the advanced lineages. "Almost" because the question of why Probosciger is aterrimus ("the blackest") is unresolved. So we cannot be certain about details, but we can point out that all the data contradicts certain patterns of plumage evolution pretty certainly. As regards the original cockatoos, what is unparsimonious would for example be:
What we can also use is one of the psittaciform phylogenies that puts the NZ clade at the base (which is essentially any modern psittaciform phylogeny) as corroborating evidence - a cryptic pattern involving some degree of barring is appartently plesiomorphic for all crown Psittaciformes (and I suspect for all Psittaciformes in general). In any case, one thing needs to be noted: the placement of the Cockatiel is not determinable with certainty at present! (IIRC one possibility is slightly more likely than the other, but I'd have to sift through all the papers to find out which. Given how singular it is, even that cannot be regarded as proof; we need fossil evidence from near the point where the Cockatiel branched off from the other lineages, and we do not have this.) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 09:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC) Gang Gang might actually not warrant inclusion in either subfamily - while the analysis results for the Cockatiel are contradictory because you can get quite good support for either possibility (IIRC), Callocephalon simply refuses to fit into the "nice" dichotomies phylogenetics software will try to construct. As regards the synthesis stick, my take is with WP:BURDEN - it is pretty hard to challenge the obvious (namely that some taxon has some phenotypical traits), especially considering Felsenstein's "Phylogenies and the comparative method" (which should provide sufficient justification for a "naive" character mapping) gets cited in scholarly works on average once every three days since 24 years... Note though that as soon as the phylogeny gets contentious, a dedicated source is surely needed - see for example the very fine paper here. One can actually turn the burden of evidence, in this case for example: "provide a source that suggests that the LCA of cockatoos was all-white/all-black". Otherwise, where would one stop? The conclusion that chimpanzees were never bipedal in their evolution is generally accepted at face value by precisely the same reasoning, although there is simply not a single shred of material evidence to support this assumption: no fossils on the chimp side of the lineage are known, and the fossils on the human side of the lineage are all (at least preferentially) bipedal. But as I said, claims cannot be made with finality as long as there is no study where Probosciger tail and cheek feathers have been photographed in UV or observed under a SEM. What we can do at this point is to observe the obvious, describe the situation as far as can be plainly seen. PS: the molphyl/clock studies of psittaciforms and the fossil record square NO WAY, you guys gotta be careful. The recent "proves Cretaceous" paper was technically far better as I thought, but in the context of Misplaced Pages it would be accused on severe POVpushing... For one thing, the Cretaceous scenario together with the molphyl trend to put them close to passeriforms (which may well be good, though I suppose not as close as the first large-scale trees suggest) puts the origin of a lot of birdy stuff into the Mesozoic nether regions. Also, a lot of fossils that ought to be there have not turned up, I mean not even traces in well-studied regions. And finally, the entire theory is probabilistic, but if that other paper on Cenozoic NZ and sea levels is right (it is cited off-handedly in the Cretaceous paper), the probability for a deep Mesozoic origin of the Psittaciformes is around 2.769126%ish ;-) (it is hard for kakapo ancestors to survive on a submerged microcontinent...) If they had titled it "cannot refute a Cretaceous origin", I'd have been delighted. But this way, it is just like the bad old times of molphyl 15 years ago -trying to outrace each other with data with a signal/noise ratio that reaches abysmality after 100 Ma.
Agaricus subrufescensThis medical mushroom article has seen significant change lately if you'd like to have a boo.LeadSongDog come howl 18:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
RE Notable saying?I recalled this one....Talk:Fes,_Morocco#Old_moroccan_saying - is it famous in morocco? Or just some anglophone urban myth...Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Musca vetustissimaaka the Australian bush fly. It seems the proper name; Google. I found this here; Aussie salute and here; Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Aussie Salute (second nomination) and see it mentioned here; Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Australia/To-do ( which may be your doing ;). G'day, Jack Merridew 11:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Re: Beetles, fungi and macro lensesHi Casliber. I saw the message you sent to fir0002. I doubt he'd be able to take any pictures of fungi since he is stuck in Melbourne due to university. I went for a walk through a cool temperate rainforest area of Wielangta forest today. I took a large number of pretty good quality fungus pictures. I need help with identifying them however, and have posted the images at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fungi#18_IDs_from_Wielangta_Forest.2C_Tasmania. I'd appreciate your help since you seem to be fairly knowledgeable in the area. You also had some gear questions. Since you want to shoot insects too, I'd get a fairly long macro lens such as the tamron 180mm or the sigma 150mm. More critical than your choice of lens is your lighting. You want a 430ex or a 580ex (extremely useful for everything). For insects add a softbox, macro flash bracket and an E-TTL cord. The softbox and macro bracket can be easily home-made. For anything stationary ditch the bracket/softbox and use a $30 ebay shoot through umbrella and swivel, and some ~$30 ebay radio triggers. You will need a light stand or an assistant. For the stationary stuff I'd also consider a decent tripod, allowing you to balance ambient and flash light. The longest exposure in the fungi I've uploaded was four seconds, impossible without a tripod. Compare File:Wielangta Unidentified Fungus 5194.jpg (fill flash) with http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/579/img5192u.jpg, which is only ambient. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC) AlexithymiaI'm wondering where you stand professionally on the concept? Some are believers, others aren't ... I did a lot of work on that article before a certain ArbCom. It's still a pretty clean article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Banksia and climate changeThis is an interesting paper: "Between 5% and 25% of species were projected to suffer range losses of 100% by 2080." I can send you a PDF if you're interested. Hesperian 23:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Mother Temple of Besakih DYK that the most important Hindu Temple in Bali has a single sentence of coverage? :( Jack Merridew 16:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Alpha CentauriI have unfortunately had to revert much of the changes you have made to the Alpha Centauri page - mainly to the structure revisions that you have done. While I agree it is best to standardise between bright star pages (i.e. Sirius), there is significant problems doing so to the Alpha Centauri page. The problem in previous edits is the confusion with Alpha Centauri the star and Alpha Centauri as a system. There was much about alpha centauri, especially its brightness compared to Arcturus as well as the relationship with Proxima Centauri. (See the Discussion with the associated page to this article.) It was thought best to avoid complexity by giving the basic information, and add complexity in sections so information could be understood at various levels of knowledge. Also as there is much interest in Alpha Centauri from children to amateur astronomers, it was best to give the introduction as brief as possible and explain the complexities as we go. As to modifications of articles as drastically as you have done to complex article, it might be better to do so with some discussion in the discussion section before doing so. Although I note that you have much experience in doing wiki edits, much better than me, it is better to make small changes in complex articles paragraph by paragraph than carte blanche changes. (I am very happy to discuss any issues on the article with you in the alpha centauri discussion to improve the article.) As to the introduction, much of the additions you have made are actually speculative, and are not necessary on fact. I.e. "This makes it a logical choice as "first port of call" in speculative fiction about interstellar travel, which assumes eventual human exploration, and even the discovery and colonization of imagined planetary systems. These themes are common to many video games and works of science fiction." has little to do with the basic facts on alpha centauri. I.e. Nearest star, third brightest star, binary star, etc. As for "Kinematics" as a title, this is irrelevant (Sirius article also has it wrong). (Also see Discussion page for Alpha Centauri with SpacePotato) Note: I have contributed much to this page - 713 edits according to the statistics. (27th April 2008 to today) Arianewiki1 18:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Judea and SamariaHi Casliber, if you have time, would you mind commenting here? SlimVirgin 19:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Bract pattern You know what I don't get? On page 245 of George (1981), and again on page 40 of Collins (2007), George gives a diagram showing the arrangement of unit inflorescences on a Banksia flower spike. Both diagrams clearly show a hexagonal layout; i.e. every common bract is surrounded by six equidistant common bracts, thus forming little hexagons. In support of this, George (1981) states "The unit inflorescences are so arranged on the axis that there are three pattern lines—vertical, and both dextral and sinistral spiral." I haven't dissected an inflorescence, but in some species the pattern persists right through flowering and can be seen on the infructescence. You won't get a better example than this B. menziesii cone. Look at that pattern. There's no way you could call it hexagonal. It is a rectangular (or rather diamond, since the lines are diagonal) grid. Depending on how you define a neighbourhood, you could argue that each common bract has 4 or 8 neighbours, but there's no way you could argue for 6. Similarly, you could argue for two pattern lines (dextral and sinistral spiral) or four (dextral, sinistral, vertical and horizontal), but there is no way you could argue for 3, because there is no reason to include vertical whilst excluding horizontal). On top of that there is a beautiful symmetry in the way each common bract is surrounded by its own floral bracts and those of its neighbours. But George's diagrams destroy that symmetry. I thought maybe B. menziesii was an exception to a general rule, but you can see the same diamond grid, though not as clearly, in File:Banksia serrata4.jpg, and I reckon (but am not certain) I can see it in my B. attenuata cone. And in File:Banksia prionotes mature cone.jpg too. What the heck is going on? (I'm not just being a pretentious wanker here. I thought the diagram was interesting and informative enough for me to whip up an SVG version for Misplaced Pages. But since copying George's diagram isn't really on, and it is much better to go straight from nature if possible, I was basing my version on this B. menziesii cone. But it isn't going to work if the diagram shows a rectangular grid and the text has to say it is hexagonal.) Hesperian 13:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Socorro springsnail reviewHello, thank you for reviewing Socorro springsnail. I think you would also like to read Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Gastropods#Universal sections, because sections of this article were a bit discussed (you can see one revert in the article and discussion User talk:Invertzoo#Socorro_springsnail). Despite this, your changes in the article are acceptable. There are no other GA articles of gastropod species yet, so we have not much articles for inspiration. Maybe you would like to review also Kerry Slug (already nominated) or Limax maximus (not yet nominated, because distribution is not fully referenced, but maybe you could nominate and review it) (or Valvata utahensis if somebody could update distribution from included link with public domain text.) I hope I will be useful although I am not native English speaker and so I will be not able to solve some English details. Personally I think, that Kerry Slug would be better to be the first gastropod species GA article, because it should probably go much more smoothly. I would like if you consider to review these articles simultaneously. --Snek01 (talk) 15:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Hi Casliber, Thanks so much for volunteering to do the review. I am another Project Gastropods person and I can help with the fixing up during the reviewing process. I just now changed "gastropod" to "gastropod species" in Snek's message for more clarity. It is certainly the case that this is our very first species article to come under GA review, so we will learn a lot from this I am sure. I am on vacation now, but I am still available for help on this process for a couple of hours probably every day, especially on parts of the article that need better prose, or more prose, or more clarity. Snek however is the one who did all the research for the article and therefore understands the species of snail better than I do. Good wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 16:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks so much for agreeing to do all this, it is very helpful indeed and extremely important to Project Gastropods. We are already working hard at upgrading a number of our articles, and this type of outside reviewing is essential in working out what kind of things we need to be fixing before we go forward with many more. We do appreciate all your help, your thoughtfulness and kindness. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Question  I note that the last six images to be posted on your talk page were posted by me. I'm not sure whether to apologise.... What is going on in the lower image? Clearly this is an inflorescence in very early bud, but those furry white things are apparently not developing flower pairs. Are they some kind of protective bract or something? Hesperian 01:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
In very young spikes like the one pictured here, they are not yet very densely packed together, so they can be perceived as individual peduncles. Given time, they will continue to grow, and as they do so they will become more and more densely packed together, until eventually they are jammed together so tightly that their dense coverings of hairs form the fibrous brown material that comprises a typical flower spike, and the common bracts at their apex will form the bract pattern on the surface of the spike. At that point, they will no longer be distinguishable as individual peduncles, but will simply be part of the spike. When the flowers start to develop, they get squeezed together even more. At this point, sometimes, a peduncle may break off the axis and be squeezed right out of the spike as the flowers around it develop. Thus you may see one or two of these furry things sitting at random positions on the surface of a developed flower spike. As evidence for this hypothesis I offer the following observations:
Hesperian 05:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Not OR any more. Look at the picture of "Banksia flower bud seen in profile" here: clear evidence of the common and floral bracts forming one of those little furry upside-down pyramids, with the flower arising from it. Hesperian 03:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC) GreekThanks again. Hesperian 07:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
http://www.lifescientist.com.au/article/318404/feature_blooming_controversy is worth a quick scan. I liked the bit about B. serrata being more closely related to Dryandra than it is to B. integrifolia. Hesperian 23:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Mary I of England
That was 18 months ago. I'd like to review this to see if semiprotection is still necessary. See talk:Mary I of England. --TS 12:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC) DYK for Myzus persicae
Follow throughUm ? MBisanz 03:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Retro gaming magsHey Cas, what does you collection look like outside of Dragon and White Dwarf? We're looking for more obscure stuff such as Different Worlds and The Space Gamer and anything else you might have to beef up some of the articles we're trying to get to GA+. BOZ (talk) 12:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Notes to selffor later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC) The HistorianThe above is now a GA! Next up is peer review. I'll post it and request a review from a friend and ask him to look at the plot summary in particular, but I think the article is pretty close to FA. Awadewit (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
RFA contextMisplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-01-07/Shell_to_Sea is a good intro. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Cypraea tigrisHi Casiliber, Thanks so much for getting the tiger cowry onto the Main Page and into the Did You Knows! Well done! I would award you an honorary membership in project gastropods, but if you become a project member then you would not be able to finish reviewing our Good Article applications, so I will hold off for the time being! All good wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Oversight#Users with Oversight permissionsHello, again Calisber, this is a A Nobody issue, (a RFC was started today against A Nobody) so I felt like you would be the most qualified editor to handle this. Can you please remove the section I explain here: Misplaced Pages talk:Harassment#WP:OUTING and a new RFC Thank you. Ikip (talk) 02:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Misplaced Pages Signpost/2009-09-21/WikiProject report: WikiProject Dungeons & DragonsCheck it out! :) BOZ (talk) 03:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Editor review/Jack Merridewfyi ;) Sincerely, Jack Merridew 09:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC) Ongoing semiprotection of Robert Gilbert (chemist)
I've looked at the history of this article and the vandalism, such as it was, does not seem to me especially heavy, though it is persistent. In any case it's nearly 18 months later, and it seems quite likely that the vandal has wandered off and found something else to do. Of course there may be oversighted revisions that I cannot see, and serious BLP issues, but the logs I can see don't give any indication of that. Do you still consider semiprotection necessary? --TS 11:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
So, how would you resolve this problem?This is a serious question. I wasn't involved in A Nobody's RFC creation, and, had I been, it would have been different. I think of things like writing "Per nom is an unacceptable argument" over and over as annoying, but not anything to get too upset about. I would have focused on A Nobody's use of deceptive practices: misleading edit summaries, distorted descriptions of other editors' behaviours, misrepresentation of sources, and similar things. These are behaviours that shouldn't be supported by anyone. Yet, when people respond to the RFC, they respond along party lines. Effectively, we wind up with otherwise good editors defending despicable practices because they focus on the inclusionism/exclusionism divide, and not the problem. Discussing them directly with A Nobody is fruitless, as he specifically ignores anyone he disagrees with. This leads to my question: if the current RFC isn't the answer, and direct discussion doesn't work, what do you see as a productive path?—Kww(talk) 13:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Kww, your section argues issues that happened in April 2007 and September 2008. There is no new evidence of this happening over a year later. As for your other complaints, I have started to document how "unwarranted" and "meritless" they are. Ikip (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
To Lar - yes the last word-type comments are problematic and I have told him so, however I still think (a) people can choose to ignore it, and (b) it is outweighed by behaviour on the other side, such as citing OR or lack of referencing when sources exist. I also esecially resent a subsection of people claiming they are speaking for "the community" in these type of discussions (and many others), which is patently untrue. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Rhubarb boleteHi Cas, I added some refs and buffed up the text of this a bit to help ensure it meets DYK length requirements. I think the title spelling may be wrong though, I've seen obscurococcineus at Fungorum and obscurecoccineus at MykoBank, but not obscureococcineus. Further, Singer spelled it obscure-coccineus. How do your Oz fungi books spell it? Sasata (talk) 17:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC) (p.s. also check here)
DYK for Boletellus obscurecoccineus
Assistance requested with imageHello; I am a relatively new Wikipedian who has been adopted by A Nobody. We are editing a page that was previously deleted three years ago. The page is entitled "Immunocal" and can be accessed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:LivingWell4U/Immunocal I have asked Immunotec for permission to use a company image of Immunocal for the page, and they have given me permission. What is my next step, please? A Nobody is quite sick at the moment and indicated you may be able to help me with this. I tried reading about this, but there is so much information I don't understand, it makes my head spin. Do I need to send some sort of legal form to the company, or is the e-mail from their lawyer sufficient? She indicated I should use the "proper trademark citations" and I have no idea what that is. Would you be so kind as to help me? I would be happy to e-mail you the file. Thank you in advance for your time and attention. Sincerely, LivingWell4U (talk) 02:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Casliber, I will give it a try. Much appreciated, and happy to know you. LivingWell4U (talk) 15:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Request for UserificationHello, Can you please Userify the recently deleted article deleted article to User:Virdi/CyanogenMod Thanks. virdi (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Peer review/The Historian/archive1The plot summary is just draining me! :) If you have any ideas, please do suggest them. Right now, everything seems to be pretty solid except for that section. Awadewit (talk) 17:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
ArbComWhat I am asking is this - ArbCom review the very long bullying by admin and abuse of administrative power in order to try and dominate me against multiple policies. Moreschi's appearance only verifies what I have been saying. This has come directly to four pages of mine dating back to June of last year. It involves lengthy wiki stalking. It involves intense meat puppetry. It involves lots of edit warring. Multiple participants are admin, admin who have also threatened to block me or actually blocked me abusively. There is no content conflict because the content does not actually matter to them. Hence why there are so many diverse pages all with the same actions. I am also not the only one to have this happen to. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Red-capped Parrot
DYK nomination of Tamarix aphylla
PsilocybinHey Cas, I suddenly have an urge to take this to FA level (no, I didn't eat any shrooms... recently). Interested in collaborating? High-importance fungal product with psychiatric applications, topped off with substantial page views... what's not to like? No problem if your plate's too full already. Sasata (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Special edition triple crown questionHi- I'm assuming that you have a hand in the Durova's Triple crown, based on the edit history of the page. Anyhow, I was wondering if you also had a hand in the special edition crowns because Durova looks to have her hands full with numerous other things. Here are discussions (one and two) about a special editiion triple crown for the WikiProject Video games. If this is something you don't handle or are too busy to handle, I more than understand. Thank you for your time. (Guyinblack25 17:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC))
QuestionHi Cas, could you say when exactly you learned that The undertow was back as Law, and when exactly you told the ArbCom? SlimVirgin 05:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
|
- Letter is script and looks like a Russian и.
- Maimonides, Guide for the perplexed, Book III ch.48. Can be viewed online at http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/gfp184.htm