Hello, Casliber. You have new messages at Firsfron's talk page. Message added 08:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
COTM
I did a bunch of changes to the COTM today and I added a couple more to vote on since the activity seems to be low I thought that might help to pick things up. I also added them to the newsletter. If you have any ideas please let me know. I was going to go ahead and adjust things for the new article but since there is a tie I wasn't sure which to choose. Is there a usual tie breaker? Thanks. --
Funny - I just posted this second on the noticeboard. I'd give it 48 hours starting from now (on musing about it for a few minutes, I am happy to let Chesapeake Bay slide off the nom. I am going to ping someone who might be interested in this. Casliber (talk·contribs) 23:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think Chesapeake bay was the article for April, it looks like Wallstreet or Lake Erie might get it for May, unless I am misunderstanding you. --
Greetings, Sorry to be a pest but I want to get the Newsletter wrapped up and sent out and I would like to include the COTM. Do you have any advice about what article we should pick for May. Tom did a massive and impressive rewrite of Wallstreet already and I think if we do a little more scrathcing around we can get it to GA or better by the end of the month. Either is fine with me though. Both articles are worthy in my opinion. --
I figured Wall Street was a better choice than Lake Erie as I figured maybe two geography articles in a row wasn't so cool....Casliber (talk·contribs) 04:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts
Please check your edit. It looks like some stuff up has occurred, and you might want to revert yourself and add the notice again? I don't want to take the time to figure it out. Johnuniq (talk) 01:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WQA
Hi there Casliber,
I came across your Mfd nom of
WP:AN
.
I think the problem with discussing it at a deletion debate is that its not geared towards making active improvements, I think that once again, the main consensus we will get is the vague sense that the process needs improvements, but the nature of Xfd process means this will just be taken as a 'win' for the keeps and nothing will actually occur.
I'm greatly in favour of starting an RFC with the stated aim of coming up with actionable improvements to the process, even if that involves scrapping it and starting from scratch or just removing it entirely. Perhaps this would involve collecting some kind of empirical data about how often WQAs are resolved satisfactorily, how many alerts progress to other forums etc.
Your input would be appreciated, Regards,Bob House 884 (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think you might be right. A black/white battleground rarely gets anything done. Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that your MfD notice at the Village Pump appears to be almost the exact same one that you used at WP:AN. I seem to recall that you were encouraged to strike the pejorative sections of your notice so as to not constitute and Canvassing attempt. Would you please extend the same change at the Village pump so as to remove another case of poisoning the consensus well? Hasteur (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
clarification request
on the delete WQA discussion you replied to my query: many of these boards have the wiki-equivalnet of tumbleweeds blowing through them. Do you mean users don't use the boards, or there's a lack of editors monitoring / replying on the boards? Thanks.
The latter. Anytime I try to gather consensus, such as merge/move discussions, in fact anywhere apart from AN/I or XfD really, I find boards really quiet...including this whole RFC which has been going for 3 months. I linked but so far it's been very quiet. -->
Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/dispute_resolution#Too_many_noticeboards_or_venues_for_Dispute_Resolution.3F. I figure if it is this quiet, then maybe amalgamating some noticeboards is in order (?) Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
The Guild of Copy Editors – May 2011 Backlog Elimination Drive
The Guild of Copy Editors invite you to participate in the May 2011 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive began on May 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on May 31 at 23:59 (UTC). The goals of this backlog elimination drive are to eliminate as many articles as possible from the 2009 backlog and to reduce the overall backlog by 15%. ! NEW ! In an effort to encourage the final elimination of all 2009 articles, we will be tracking them on the leaderboard for this drive.
Awards and barnstars
A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants. Some are exclusive to GOCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page.
You are receiving a copy of this newsletter as you are a member of the
AWB
on 07:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
An idea for the Collaboration
I just had a crazy idea for the collaboration and wanted to run it be a couple folks (naturally you are one of them). What do you think about a bot that would notify all the WikiProjects on the talk page of the article selected for the USCOTM and any users who edited the article that the article had been selected as the collaboration of the month?
I think it would be rather easy to create a simple notification template that says something to the effect of:
"An article you have edited (or that falls in the scope of for the WikiProjects) has been selected as the United States Wikipedians Collaboration of the Month for the Month of Month Year. All interested editors are encouraged to help improve the article or vote for next months article." or something to that effect. --
Btw, we would obviously want to factor out bots and Ip's and possibly anyone who only edited the article once, possibly only in the last X number of editors for very long lists. Posibly also excluding inactive editors. --
Sounds like a good idea. I think similar things have been tried in the past with oter project collaborations. Not sure of their success rate.Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks, ideally I would like to Engineer it in such a way that it could be useful for multiple things (Peer reviews, A class reviews, Collab notifications, etc). Of course it would need an opt out/opt in feature like the newsletters for those that do or don't want it. I will craft up a proposal over the next couple days. Maybe we can have it in place in the next month or two. --
and, rest assured, I won't bother you again with such a brazen request for what was merely a fortuitous piece of off-wki curiosity. Best Nishidani (talk) 09:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ref
Please fix one of my refs for the European hare article. I have no idea whats wrong. LittleJerry (talk) 01:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Casliber. You have new messages at TreasuryTag's talk page. Message added 09:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Talkback
Hello, Casliber. You have new messages at TreasuryTag's talk page. Message added 10:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Enough
If you're so clueless as to have never heard of AWB, and so bizarre as to think that linking the word 'Europe' to Europe is a bad idea, then you'll excuse me for not valuing your feedback and asking you to keep it to yourself in future. Please do not edit my talkpage again unless leaving me a notification required by policy. Please do not feel obliged to follow me around Wikipedia tracking my edits and commenting in the same places I comment. OK? ╟─TreasuryTag►Acting Returning Officer─╢ 10:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, see
Wikipedia:Link#What_generally_should_not_be_linked..unless you're unfamiliar with Europe, but last time I checked it was a major geographic feature called a continent. I think knowing about linking (especially if one is slapping wikify tags on articles) is more basic that some automated program, but YVMV.....Casliber (talk·contribs) 11:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
DYK for Dendrophthoe vitellina
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
"All discussions on the are subject of En dashes in article titles discussion (interpreted inclusively) are subject to civility and 1RR restrictions". But discussions aren't ordinarily reverted at all, so what does 1RR mean in a discussion? Art LaPella (talk) 04:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I put that in just in case. I think we've all been surprised before at the places revert-wars can happen - e.g. removing of incivil comments etc. The point is to really clamp down on acrimony and insist that everyone take a deep breath and think before typing. Casliber (talk·contribs) 04:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've kind of warned 99.90.197.244 (talk·contribs) about their 10RR editing at human evolution. Now the IP is making some nonsense commentary in Talk:Human evolution. I'm not sure if the editor is English or just pushing some odd POV, but I seriously think this person should be blocked from editing for awhile. Please help. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions 06:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sirius links
Hi! As I told you, Sirius is now running for FA in the Spanish version. Some people have noticed problems with external links in the references. Some of them don't exist now, since the English article became featured three years ago. I thought maybe you'd want to check those links. Regards, Kadellar (talk) 11:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, time flies. I'll take a look. Only found two - one which was redundant and the other I used the wayback machine for. Casliber (talk·contribs) 12:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, Sirius has become FA in Spanish, thanks to you and the other people who worked on the English article! Kadellar (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And a further reply, and please count this as a pre-emptive
Wikiquette alert notification that if you don't retract your aspersions and personal attacks, you'll be reported there. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 13:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Dash troubles
Are you overseeing that dash RFC thing? I was a bit confused about what stage of the process this is currently meant to represent. Is this already in a stage where we're supposed to cast !votes on individual sections? Perhaps a procedural clarification could be added somewhere. Thanks, – Fut.Perf.☼ 11:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Technically we are not supposed to be voting yet, but PMA has laid out and itemised the questions. If there are no further ones then I guess we can proceed. I'd rather not go and "unvote" everyone's votes as I want as much input as possible - I think as long as some admins keep an eye on proceedings and the final vote page orderly we can get a consensus. Casliber (talk·contribs) 11:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber, I would appreciate it if you could do something to address this kind of thing. There seems to be some fear here (not just this user, by the way) that if we can't come to an agreement then everyone remotely involved is going to be banned or something. I noted earlier that the way the motion was worded was a little creepy, and hopefully you didn't mean it that way, so I think it would be helpful if you could do something to clear this up. The way it is now, people who can contribute constructively to this debate are scared away, and that is not helpful. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't follow your last comment; did it seem that I'm trying to "railroad" the discussion in some way? I support splitting off that bit to some other section; I would have put it on the talk page if the talk page had a talk page :) - Dank (push to talk) 21:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The specific future conative referred to convincing Ohms Law to just vote rather than be scared. My green notes are as read. Look how some sections are and we've had only 3 or 4 editors involved. God forbid what it will look like in 6 weeks unless we keep it focussed/collapsed/footnoted/somethinged...Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request
Hello! Thanks for the review and the suggestions at the Sack of Amorium FAC. I don't know if the subject interests you, and I intend to bring it to FAC eventually either way, but there's a WPMILHIST A-class review going on for Thomas the Slav. If you have the time, I'd be grateful for a review by you. Best regards, Constantine ✍ 16:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cas, when you get a chance can you delete my user page. No controversy, just maintenace, I dont want people I know in real life knowing I pretty it so much, and it'll be back as the current version straight after. Ta dude, and here is an epic metal classic by way of return.by the way we had the queen in during the week. She seemed fine, husband was a bit odd. [1]. Ceoil 16:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers mate. Ceoil 18:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYK nomination of Gaultheria hispidula
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Just need an inline citation for the fact in the hook. Cheers - Basement12(T.C) 23:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
dietary fibre. Although it is sold commercially, it has not been successfully grown in cultivation. Available fresh in autumn in Central, Southern and Northern Europe, it is most often dried, packaged and distributed worldwide. (more...
)
Gah... for whatever reason I usually get mainpage appearances when I'm stuck on vacation crippled with a crappy laptop and spotty internet connection. Been meaning to update this article for a while now (especially
Thanks! When I'm home I'll make some other tweaks (list-defined refs) and perhaps add a couple additional new sources. Sasata (talk) 03:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Xanthostemon chrysanthus
nominate
) 08:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
thanks for helping with the american white ibis article. do you wanna talk/discuss about it on the white ibis discussion page or do you prefer here? I noted you shifted the diet to behavior. shouldnt it be on a category on its own since it isnt technically a behavior? that's what my professor told me. just wanna hear your opinion on it. do you think it is ready for nomination for GA status? benongyx (talk·contribs) 21:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Benongx here. I expanded the lead paragraph and did some minor changes. the citation area has also been corrected. do you wanna take a look to see if it able to be nominated for GA status? cheers, ben. (talk) 03:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
hi. i am benongyx. thanks for all your advice. it is really helpful. im still in the process of editing and correcting what i wrote. could you give me some time to adjust the article? i'm not really sure what you have been changing and I think it is better you let me adjust the article first. cheers!
Hi, I'm a newbie, and I thought a photo of what I was told to be Pleurotus nidiformis would be good to put into creative commons. (1) I have since discovered the page Omphalotus_nidiformis which reclassifies (?) Pleurotus to Omphalotus and (2) looking at the existing photo of Omphalotus nidiformis, it appears that my friend's S.E.Qld fungus is (a) not South Australian and (b) has a darker centre. Now I'm afraid of adding anything AT ALL since it may be struck down. What should I do, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacis alfredo (talk • contribs) 08:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your redirection. What happens, though to the photo, now? Lacis alfredo (talk) 04:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I had planned expanding the article at some stage. If it is jammed in now it makes it look a little 'busy' Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WT:MOS
Regarding your post, let me know what you're looking for, there or here. One problem is that our brains automatically throw out information as we read, and things like "the length of the little line" are one of the first things we throw out ... leading people to think they remember what they read, when they don't. Another problem is that there's a clear split between older and more recent usage, and between American and non-American usage (as I just detailed at
WT:MOS#Style guides). These problems make the issue more contentious than it would otherwise be. Personally, I've been fiddling with dashes and hyphens for years when during copyediting for review processes, and no one ever cared, but obviously people care now, so let's do whatever's needed to lower the volume, which in my experience means backing up what we're doing with sources rather than making it up as we go. - Dank (push to talk) 14:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Ok, the more structure the better - what I envisage is a separate subpage on WT:MOS, with a preamble section which includes all the May discussion plus some notes on outstanding issues. We then clarify outstanding issues and set up how to vote on each. This must be circulated broadly around the 'pedia so we get some numbers once voting starts. The key is that however excessively fine-split motions are, it needs to be more. For instane here - Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#RfC:_simple_resolution_to_disagreements_over_dashes - packaging six uses into one motion is a bad idea. They need to be split out individually. Right now I am waiting for hte clerks to post the motion and invite uninvolved editors and admins to coordinate as facilitators. Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll probably be more useful citing style guides, so for purposes of this case, I won't be "uninvolved". I'll hop in after some structure develops. - Dank (push to talk) 15:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Peer reviewing this article, you suggested writing a short summary of each of Mrs David's books. I thought it was an excellent idea, and did so, but it rather ran away with me, and I have made it a separate article at Elizabeth David bibliography. If, perchance, you were minded to look in and make any changes or suggestions you thought suitable I should esteem it a favour. Tim riley (talk) 18:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYK nomination of South East Forest National Park
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Magpie-lark
I gather that the Magpie-lark is also called the Mudlark in Australia, but I have no idea how common the use of "Mudlark" is. It seems to me that the current article at "Mudlark" about people collecting items in mud is a rather uncommon use of the word these days, and therefore this meaning might not be the primary topic. I am also not sure if Mudlark should be redirected to Magpie-lark or if "Mudlark" should be the dab rather than "Mudlark (disambiguation)". Snowman (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, good question. My recall is that "Magpie-lark" and "Peewit" are the two most common names I've seen in bird books, but they note "peewee" and "mudlark" as alternative names. I use "peewee" myself which my family understands and uses. This is a good question as the other use (for mudlark) is archaic too. I will ask on the australian birdwatchers' forum and try and tally up the responses and where the respondents are from - this could be an interesting study. These are very tame and friendly birds and very common site in urban areas. Casliber (talk·contribs) 00:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
... so it turns out to be a more difficult to answer than I thought initially. Snowman (talk) 07:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, I think I might buff it for GA/FA. I was amused a couple of years ago when there was a young bird in my father-in-law's garden. He'd feed it some bird seed and it would happily come and walk around and explore the lounge room and dining room. Later, when it wanted to be fed it would land and walk around outside the glass doors and ruffle its feathers and fluff itself up and wait expectantly until my father in law would feed it. it was an interesting exercise to figure out who was training whom. 07:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
After a few weeks the hits on the new dab Mudlark (disambiguation) will help to gauge how many of the hits that go to "Mudlark" (people searching in mud) then go onto the new dab (the only signpost on article pages to the new dab is on "Mudlark"). I suspect that there is no primary topic supposing that you do not come up with something about Australian bird names that you have not heard about. Snowman (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I think that rejigging it as a dab page and looking at the pageviews is a very good idea. Casliber (talk·contribs) 10:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for South East Forest National Park
nominate
) 00:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
DYK for Smoky Mouse
nominate
) 00:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
DYK for Olive Whistler
nominate
) 00:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Flying High Bird Sanctuary
I started an article, Flying High Bird Sanctuary, about an Australian bird sanctuary some time ago, and out-of-the-blue someone has added a speedy tag despite the article being well sourced. I think that it is worthy of an article on the wiki, and I would be grateful for your opinion either for or against deletion. Snowman (talk) 07:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re-think: I would agree with you that the current sources are not very good. I understand that it is often difficult to find good independent sources about zoos, and often the zoo's own website is used as a source. Snowman (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Users being harassed
Hello, sorry if I am bugging you or if I'm not doing this right, but as far as I know you are an administrator, so I just wanted to alert you to something.
The user Fatty2k10 has been making abusive edits and having edit wars for weeks now, and every time he gets a warning he just blanks his page, which prevents other members from seeing them and therefore preventing a block. His talk page history proves he is very abusive to other members of Wikipedia, for example in one case where he called someone a prick just for giving him a warning. His user page states he is retired, however he is still rapidly making un-constructive edits to Wikipedia and numerous people are trying to get him to stop via the talk page, but again, he just blanks it.
Please take a look into this if you have any spare time, and take whatever action you feel is necessary. Thanks --
Hi, Fatty2k10 has returned their latest retirement and I've tried to engage them in a proper discussion over their edits again rather than sending templates but this was the result. Do you have any thoughts on how/if I should continue with the matter? - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question about the one of the points you raised. If having the retired template on their user page (and presumably also the recent death one that's on there) is okay, why was Fatty2k10's user page deleted by an administrator earlier in the month with essentially the same content?[2] - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 16:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They've quickly changed to semi-retired and no longer dead on their user page (still retired on their talk page) probably after reading this but I'd still like to know for future reference even if it may not apply now. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 17:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, see Wikipedia:User_pages#Deleting_your_user_page_or_user_talk_page - generally speaking, deleting user pages is pretty uncontroversial and you'll see quite a few editors with redlinked userpages. User talk pages is a whole other matter and is more of a record of an editor's interactions with others. I note there has been more problems and will see what else we can do to resolve it. Casliber (talk·contribs) 00:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
cup
2010 Wikicup Semi-finalist
Awarded for progression into the 4th round (semi-finals) of the 2010 Wikicup
Thank you for sorting out that troublesome user, and getting us all to work together. I hope it works out well, and that the user(s) who was abusive will now see a different side.
Err, thanks - I haven't finished yet and will see what else helps out. :) Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Something's missing
I think I may need to thank you for this, but I'm not sure. "**@FT2 -"Scott was reasonably within policy and practice by every standard I can find" - is really stretching things. He pretty clearly did." leaves something dangling. I think you must have cut something out somewhere in the course of editing.—Kww(talk) 21:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did muse on several variations and added and removed stuff before I finally decided to post, but I felt FT2's comment was a somewhat extreme interpretation that needed disendorsing (by me anyway). I'll revisit. I was about to say, yeah it's missing alot of cuss-words but that would have been facetious and hopefully jocular.... Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have responded on the page (implicitly) to what FT2 said. Because something is a "reasonable" interpretation (and I think mine are) does not mean it cannot be "reasonably" be thought to be wrong. Even I wouldn't argue that what I did here was clearly within policy - I think it is justifiable if one considers the bigger picture (but even that does not mean, with hindsight, it was the wisest course).--Scott Mac 21:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FT2 is arguing that BLP and admin discretion in exceptional circumstances allow a latitude with the normal rules and process (and seeming consensus). I agree. However, I fear in his attempt to make things "clear" he is in danger of wikilawyering in the opposite direction. I'd rather not rely such minutiae either in prosecution or defence. The nature of exceptions is that are usually justified on pragmatic grounds, and thus unclear and situational. You clarify them, and you just tie your hands to another inflexibility - or open the door to all sorts of undesirable things being justified.--Scott Mac 22:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. This isn't a cut-and-dried black-and-white sort of problem and portraying it as such is facile and divisive. If all of us arbs are pretty set on our views (and hence a case opening is numerically impossible), then the sooner we close it off and start focussing on how we'll proceed from here...after all...
We're in one of those inability-to-make-an-omelette-without-breaking-eggs type scenarios...
It's also about using {{#tag:ref|blah, blah, blah [[#CITEREFAuthorYEAR|Author Year]].|name=anchor-name}} to link to references from inside other references.
125.162.150.88 (talk) David 11:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] (and note the [edit] links following the cite doi entries in the footnotes and references sections)
Generally folks get a bit less interested when there are unstable taxa - with
Pandionidae - hence some rejigging is in order. More amazing is that some research suggests the Elanids might be basal to both accipitrids and owls (!!) As if there isn't enough on my plate....Casliber (talk·contribs) 11:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
wut? I was asking about teh method of referencing... unstable taxa would be our "Holy Community", no? The cites in scientific articles will have DOI available far more frequently than, say,
Aah, I like the new cite doi thingies. Much quicker to add. Casliber (talk·contribs) 12:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's the ticket. Gonna need a lot of hands as there must be tens of thousands of bird articles. Then there would be lizards and such. Spread the word.
This pretty clearly illustrates how modern referencing techniques can de-snot article prose. Three of those went all the way off to a doi template. [Accipitriformes] ;)
Bald Eagle should have {{cite doi | 10.1016/S0305-1978(96)00049-X }} invoked, but you protected-it-forever. See this and this for several ways to do it, depending on just where you want the cite to appear down south.It's now shared by nine articles 125.162.150.88 (talk) 06:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
Thanks so much. It's at FAC - I'll mention your name there. --Dweller (talk) 14:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Articles for deletion/Terry (Fawlty Towers)
Hello Casliber! Thanks for commenting back to me on the AFD. I thought that although I agreed with User:TreasuryTag's nomination they had made it a rather unpleasant experience, so I didn't really feel I could vote. I see you had a run in with him: I think it must have made his day when an administrator commented on his AFD nomination, he got no ambush someone in authority! I also see that he's threatened you with some sort of Wiki-etiquette tribunal. Oh well I found it all very unfriendly and off-putting, so I think I'll leave him a note on his very bare discussion page. All best, Chris - aka TehGrauniad (talk) 22:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Chris, you might want to have a check of the page history and look at the diffs of some of the material that has been removed, as well as this thread and this thread. Find two or more comments where folks have been frustrated by his (1) propensity to get the last word in, and (2) some inept tagging, and set up a request for comment. It will be validated. If you don't want to I will later on today but am busy for the next few hours. He won't listen to a request by a single user. Casliber (talk·contribs) 23:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is definitely his way. It seems that his editing exists for the most part to rock the boat. Wikipedia is very nice in that it tolerates problem editors, which is a lovely thing to do, as sometimes problems are just down to misunderstandings. I think a little wikilove can go a long way, but I don’t think it’s helpful for this user who has been on Wikipedia for c.5 years, and seems to relish skirmishes, and it seems in one case he’s managed to push someone over the edge. As he’s ignored my message do you think that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct is the right way to go about this? TehGrauniad (talk) 10:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @talk:TehGrauniad - does a bear shit in the woods...is the pope Polish German....does a fish have a watertight arsehole? I am off to have some dinner...if you set it up, I'll take a look. Made you-know-who look anyway (chuckle/lightly taps fingers on side of nose twice)Casliber (talk·contribs) 10:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, I think TreasuryTag's behaviour onwiki is becoming more and more unpleasant. I get the feeling he's running out of friends. It's a shame. When I mentored him back into the community, he really showed a lot of promise, to the extent that I hoped the community might consider him for adminship. I'll try contacting him again, because that AfD and some of what I've seen at ANI is just unpleasant. --Dweller (talk) 10:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(seriously) TreasuryTag. I was about to post, seriously, just knock it off. Now. But I think it is just too late. We'll see what the community thinks. Casliber (talk·contribs) 10:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are most welcome! I make it a practice, as an admin, to readily agree to virtually all userfy requests! :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Gaultheria hispidula
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi. Can I just say, I am actually serious about my request that you stop following my edits. I've currently got a moderately lengthy .txt file on my computer containing a not insubstantial list of pages to which you have either obviously tracked me, or at the very least made a special effort to comment in threads by or about me. Not all of your contributions in this regard are altogether 'good' on their own merits, let alone the fact that they involved following me around Wikipedia. Since they do not show any concerted effort to correct policy violations, for instance, there doesn't seem to be any obvious justification for this trend, and I would ask that you simply and voluntarily put a stop to it. I don't track your edits, and I would appreciate it if you didn't track mine. Thanks, ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 14:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback
Hello, Casliber. You have new messages at Sandstein's talk page. Message added 13:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Yellow-crowned Bishop
expansion
Hi Casliber. I saw your thread at
Hooded Crow as an example). Size has gone from 535 to 3265 (using DYKcheck prose size). As you have lots of experience in bird, animal, and plant articles, I was wondering if you'd like to help improve it. Listing you as co-expander is not a problem. Or perhaps you'd like to check it after I move it to mainspace. Let me know. BarkingMoon (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
Hey. Thanks for the help Cas! I just copied my sandbox to the article, so I'd guess you don't need to do any admin thing. I made a DYKmake for both of us but I don't know how to fix the red link with our names in the nom line. If you think of a better hook, by all means propose it. You're very kind for the prompt help. BarkingMoon (talk) 02:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dang, the hooks are tricky. I fixed the redlink. Feel free to expand others :) Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ched Davis said to use "Did you know that when some Bishops are ready to mate, that their heads and backs turn a distinctive yellow in color." so I'll put that in as an alt. I think I will do some more bird articles.BarkingMoon (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cirt liked yours, but having alternatives is always good. A bot went through in 2007 and made a stub for every bird species, so there are oodles to choose from...I am sure there is some cute hook for
Black Bishop which we can say is not a chess piece or something....Casliber (talk·contribs) 10:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
Awesome that the article made it to the DYK! VERY cool. I wish I had a bit more time to edit it for the sake of accuracy and completeness, but no matter, I am overwhelmingly pleased! Yay! ;-) Jgreeter (talk) 02:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you are happy - DYK is a great way to constructively graffiti the main page ;) - let me know if you want help expanding anything else. Interesting plant too.... Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Kalamata (olive)
nominate
) 08:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Am I around??
Hi Casliber...sorry for taking off for a while. I ran into a personal tragedy in my life (death of a relative) and needed to take a break from a few things. I'm logging back into wikipedia and hoping to take off where I left. Sorry for the sudden departure.Thompsma (talk) 15:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very sorry to hear that - I do hope you're feeling better and welcome back :) Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Black Bishop
Wow, Cas. This one is kicking me. There is MUCH less info than on the yellow-crowned one. It must be much rarer. See my sandbox. I can't find squat on description and behavior. I did find this, but I think it won't pass muster for wiki. Do you have some offline sources you can use to beef this up? Thanks, and oh BTW you need to archive a ton of your talk page ;-) BarkingMoon (talk) 22:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC) PS, feel free to directly edit my sandbox. BarkingMoon (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where else to look for more info, we'd only need a little more but I can't find diddly squat. Anything we can do here? BarkingMoon (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Might have to wait for a day or two - I can go to the uni library on thursday. Looking online was tough....Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yea it was for this one. I started another in my sandbox2 on the White-winged Widowbird. I just joined WP:Birds too. You're very kind for all this help. Got any google books links?BarkingMoon (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At DYK now, but if you find anything, that'd be great. It especially needs behavior info. Do you have anything on the genus in general? I have 4 bird hooks waiting at DYK now. See my user page for a list. Thanks so much for your kindness and help. BarkingMoon (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reviewer didn't buy off on the hook about not being a chess piece because it wasn't in the article. Can you think of a way to work that in? BarkingMoon (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit overly strict but if dem's de rules, dem's de rules. Could make a neutrally framed discussion on the big Discussion page. Will get there....eventually, juggling alot of things at the moment...Casliber (talk·contribs) 22:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Robin Friday
Hi Casliber! It's been a while; I hope all is well. I'm just looking for a bit of input onto the
Reading Evening Post and South Wales Echo. So long as all quotes and so on are credited (which they are), I think that an exception can be made: It's going to be hard to avoid relying largely upon it otherwise. In a nutshell: Since it is itself taking from many sources which it openly and obviously cites, the argument could be made that it isn't over-reliance on just one source. What do you think? Thanks! – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 22:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
WikiCup 2011 May newsletter
We're half way through round 3 of the
featured article candidates
: if you are nominating content for which you intend to claim WikiCup points, please make this clear in the nomination statement so that the FAC director and his delegates are aware of the fact.
A running total of claims can be seen
Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
White-winged Widowbird
This one was much easier. Feel free to improve/review/etc. BarkingMoon (talk) 02:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has already brought up an issue about the bolded text. Please comment there asap. Tks! BarkingMoon (talk) 02:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After you fix the bolding in this article, I'll mimic what you did in the yellow bishop one.BarkingMoon (talk) 10:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
John Jackson Dickison
DYK ready-Thanks. I changed ref. 3 as you recommended. I hope you enjoyed reading the article as much as I enjoyed writting it. Take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I realize it's short notice, but would you be able to get this in the next DYK queue for today to coincide with the National Archives' featuring of the document? It's been approved now. I'll have the high-resolution photo up in about an hour, once I get in to work, too. It would probably look great on the main page. Dominic·t 12:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
damn, went to bed early. Hope this got sorted. Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIRD is for Brit-speak vice Yank-speak, and that that somewhat common around wiki.BarkingMoon (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
We generally use British spelling in Oz (though I do use "ize"), and there are a preonderance of british and Australasian folks there....General rule has been US bird, US spelling, elsewhere British. Casliber (talk·contribs) 22:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was just about to reply there when the orange bar came up...Casliber (talk·contribs) 23:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Melaleuca fulgens
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I am surprised this was untouched for so long. It was only 97 char prose long and was interesting. Lots of possible hooks here. Propose and alt if you like. BarkingMoon (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aah, sorry. I see now. I just moved the batch along. Casliber (talk·contribs) 04:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Email
You've got mail.
The clock is ticking.... 01:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Do the rhabdo
Thanks for your helpful comments in the peer review of rhabdomyolysis. I was wondering if you might be prepared to comment on the current state of the article at the FAC page. Thanks ever so much in advance! JFW | T@lk 10:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was getting to it - been a bit busy today. Casliber (talk·contribs) 12:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Guess I have no choice but to redo the "table of causes" now. I will look through CritCare2005, NEJM, Warren and Elsayed (and OTM, naturally) and probably end up using a surgical sieve. Will address your comments tomorrow night together with everything else. If I understand Warren correctly, the rhabdomyolysis encountered in neuroleptic malignant syndrome is from persistent muscle rigidity (I don't believe dopamine has a direct effect). JFW | T@lk 14:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe that - I have seen a CK at 80,000 in a person with moderate rigidity (they were still ambulant). Sorry about the table - I wish I'd caught that at PR but got well and truly sidetracked. Let me know if you find another table of causes you think is better. Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will probably follow Axl's advice and borrow the structure of the table from the
Oxford Textbook of Medicine, but I will need to add additional causes to that table for the article to remain encyclopedic. Will keep you posted. JFW | T@lk 06:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Meanwhile in other news, the business with equine exertional rhabdomyolysis has now prompted me to look better for sources about animals, and I have found the Merck Veterinary Manual and two 2008 reviews. And that all started because neither of us really like "see also"... JFW | T@lk 08:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done with the table of causes. It now follows the grouping of Warren (see the talkpage) and I have split of the list of underlying hereditary causes as it clearly needed considering separately, again following Warren. I'm sure there's some t's to be crossed and i's to be dotted, but I hope this is satisfactory from a WIAFA perspective. JFW | T@lk 10:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TB
Hi Cas, a couple of weeks ago you indicated you might be able to provide a review for WP:Featured article review/Tuberculosis/archive1. If so, we could really use it - no one has commented on the review since your remark. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Orangemarlin and I were lamenting over our apathy. I was going to revisit after setting some FAC reviews in motion and tidying up some GANs. I note Axl might be interested...Casliber (talk·contribs) 12:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Masked Crimson Tanager
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Could you prepare a summary of what you think we agree on? The discussion is growing stale, and the anount of unanimity will decrease with time.
One next step would what there is consensus to add to the unanimity. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 19:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two notes:
That obscure discussion was never intended as a poll; it was intended as a place to draft a poll, depending on what the handful of us who were discussing it were actually agreed upon.
You are correct in observing a deficit in notification. I had hoped for more help in alerting and will do it today. Casliber (talk·contribs) 22:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Greek mythology in popular culture
Hi. There's a discussion about inclusion criteria at
I've started this in mainspace per your suggestion. Any help greatly appreciated. BarkingMoon (talk) 10:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems there are no subspecies for this. I'm not sure how this ties into it being a superspecies. Should we just delete the subspecies section line? I'm helping with the dual with blue-winged pitta, great idea! BarkingMoon (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
superspecies means a group of closely related species. Does not mean there are subspecies necessarily. Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
this ref says no subspecies. It also has sound recording of this bird but I don't know how to convert audio sound into "zhee-zhee" (text form, whatever the term is for that) BarkingMoon (talk) 14:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BB
Just in case you are not aware you will it is highly likely that you will need to do more edits on the
I was aware and I agree you made a fair point. I did a bit of hunting unsuccessfully for references but did little to the article itself. We now have alot of bird articles with a photo and little text, so I think it's prudent to buff as many as I can think of to a start level so the photo doesn't look out of place. I notice a photo has now appeared at
Red-cheeked Parrot. I can expand any parrot (as I have forshaw) or Australian bird very easily.Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
The parrot image has been in the infobox for quite a long time. Snowman (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it was two years or more since I last looked at the stub - I haven't edited it before the last 24 hours. Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How hard would it be to get this to GA?BarkingMoon (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile I'm working on
Hooded Dotterel (plover), and it's an Aussie bird ;-) BarkingMoon (talk) 21:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Pitta had a major revamp by Sabine's Sunbird (talk·contribs) who is intermittently active. I think it is worth asking him as he has a good grounding in it and he'll know what else he was going to do. Just place a note on the talk page. I think it is close on a casual look and a joint GA nom including him s a good idea. Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Feel free to add to the Aussie plover article.BarkingMoon (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, we can also cheer him up by expanding
Common Diving-petrel
which was only 54 words a couple of days ago :)) 21:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm up for that. You know, having read all this pro-Brit biased spelling grates on my Yank background. BarkingMoon (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hooded Dotterel
Can you dig up the identifying scientist and year for the sub tregellasi? It currently has question marks in the article. BarkingMoon (talk) 22:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - will be going back and forth today. Sunday...family time yada yada yada Casliber (talk·contribs) 22:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At DYK with dual credit. There are 3 refs with Aussie government maps. Are these PD or otherwise eligible for commons? BarkingMoon (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They are not PD - I can make one easily though tonight. Casliber (talk·contribs) 04:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I've updated the proposal and commented on your input, if you're interested.
The clock is ticking.... 10:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Hooks
I have 7 hooks in 6 different noms at the noms page. All are approved though a couple have alt suggestions. This probably doesn't happen very often, though I know (from the DYK STATS pages) that the record for a multi-article hook is over 20 articles. And I can't believe how people are arguing over the Black Bishop hook. BarkingMoon (talk) 11:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Common Diving-petrel is at DYK now. Want to dual it with the South Georgia petrel? BarkingMoon (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Too bad I can't find a free pic of either. BarkingMoon (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've made over 1600 edits in 5 weeks and created or 5x+ expanded 14 articles. I clearly need help ;-) BarkingMoon (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, hmmm. The The Content Creativity Barnstar on Wikipedia:Barnstars has a couple of feathers on it so it can be bird-y, as does the The Citation Barnstar. And the The Home-Made Barnstar looks like a nest....Casliber (talk·contribs) 10:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Human Rights Barnstar barnstar could also be "outstanding contribution to Columbiformes articles ('cos it's got a pigeon on it) Casliber (talk·contribs) 10:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. none of those are perfect fits, just close. Several of you deserve one.BarkingMoon (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good Article. I'd like to update the USCOTM page but am not sure where to put the news, I know the members of that project really worked on improving the article. I noticed that you're listed as a member of USCOTM and thought you might know where to put the information. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 22:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
I think that it is unfortunate that User BarkingMoon declined to fix his own formatting errors; see his comment. Update: I have fixed subspecies listing across several recently expanded pages. Snowman (talk) 07:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request for assistance
Hi. Firstly I hope that I'm doing the right thing here, if not then I apologise but I've tried looking through assorted procedural documentation and frankly my head is spinning. I found your details on the peer review volunteers list and figured you might be the right person to ask- especially since you mentioned "football" as one of your subjects.
I'd very much appreciate it if, in your capacity as an admin, you would be so kind as to take a look at the article for Toni Calvo- I think there are many things wrong with the article particularly since it's a biography of a living person. Although it has frequently been updated, there are no references, no in-line citation and the tone of the article suggests either original research or that it has been mainly written by a fan or fans. I added a refimprove box but it was removed within a few days and, not being an admin nor particularly wise in the ways of Wikipedia, I'm unsure as to what to do next. I could, of course, simply replace the box but I have doubts about the efficacy of that particular course of action. I have a feeling that doing so would only result in it being removed again and things could possibly degenerate into an unpleasant situation- which is why I'm looking for help.
If you get the time- and I appreciate that you receive a significant number of requests in your in-box- I'd be grateful if you would either tag the article appropriately with suggestions as to how it can be improved or perhaps point me in the right direction as to what sort of action to take. Ideally I'd like someone more knowledgeable on the subject- of either Toni Calvo or Wikipedia procedures- to collaborate with me and help get the flaws in the article sorted out. My thinking is also partly that people might respect tags added by an admin more than those added by a regular editor and that if they didn't, an admin has better tools at their disposal for making sure that they do in future.
I apologise again if this is in the wrong place- and also that a simple request seems to have turned into an essay- but I do need help with this and your in-box seemed like a good place to start.
Thanks in advance for your assistance- I do appreciate it.
Thanks. That's great. Hopefully someone will pay it some attention now. I'd do it myself but I know nothing about the subject- which was why I was looking him up in the first place.
I have come across two examples recently when an editor, who I presume is new to editing bird pages, had got in to bad habits - one series of edits effectively transferring an articles edits his User talk subpage and another series of incorrectly formatted subspecies lists. I think that this indicates that it is best to show new editors to the wiki (or new editors to a WP Project) how to edit the wiki by pointing out errors (including understandable errors) at an early stage. My concern is that when users persist with particular incorrect editing styles it appears sometimes to be much more difficult to get them into good habits. Snowman (talk) 07:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snowman, after the first two I have (hopefully) convinced BarkingMoon that it is better to just edit the articles in mainspace. Did you mean two pages or two editors? Casliber (talk·contribs) 09:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to two examples of series of problems by one editor - using sub-pages and formatting authors in subspecies lists. Incidentally, this unsigned edit saying "Heil! signed just a nobody" written by User BarkingMoon on my talk page seems to me to indicate some resentment about conforming to wiki-guidelines or being informed about guidelines by myself, so explanations that are provided by yourself might be better received, as the User BarkingMoon appears to trust you more. I think User BarkingMoon does some good work, which I think will be even better when he as mastered more Wiki lore. Snowman (talk) 10:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
See edit history of image. This administrator is not on line at the moment to ask. It seems that he accidentally gave the small image that is going to be shown on the main page for the DYK the same name as the file in the infobox. This has the effect of showing the small image in the infobox (somehow the en wiki version takes preference over the commons version) and this looks silly. I and another user put a large image in the infobox from commons (with a different name) to look better. It really needs an administrator to fix, because the files are protected - the small image should be given a new name and this name of the small file used in the main page. When the old small image on en wiki is deleted then the proper sized image from commons will be shown in the infobox. Snowman (talk) 22:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Proper you say. Also sprach Snowmanradio. Heil Weiter noch einmal! You also keep skirting the issue of you repeatedly inserting an unprotected image into the main page. Someone with your experience should know better. And why didn't you notice this when you were editing the article? Methinks there's a pattern here of missing things.BarkingMoon (talk) 22:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was fixed by an administrator, who had been following the discussion on the DYK talk page. A miniature version had been accidentally uploaded to en wiki, and it has been fixed with this edit. I think that showing the uncropped image in the article infoxbox was practically the only thing an non-admin could do to improve the appearance of the article in preference to showing the miniature image that was temporarily here by mistake. Snowman (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update: the miniaturized photograph was deleted when the articles DYK ended, so some of the links to this image and its edit history are not functional now - only showing a bots edit. Snowman (talk) 00:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would be grateful for a translation of the Germany in the above comments. Snowman (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I have been very busy this morning and have just logged back on now. I think you both need to take a deep breath and avoid each other. Wikipedia is a big place. Snowman tehre are strict rules about unprotected images appearing on the mainpage. BarkingMoon, using German was possibly not germane to defusing this. Snowman, no I am not going to translate. We are all going to move on from this now. Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello. I am writing this message as a third party monitoring an ongoing arbitration case. I have been voicing concerns about a proposed finding of fact since 6 June, but no arbitrator has chosen to respond to those concerns. If you have a moment, I would appreciate your input on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Proposed_decision#Proposed_finding_9. I apologize for contacting you on your personal talk page, but despite posting notes daily on the proposed decision talk page requesting arbitrator input, no one has responded. Thank you. —Bill Price (nyb) 22:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Argggggghhhhh. Do you know how hard this article is? Many of the citations are dead, or <cough, cough> don't meet any MEDRS standards of today. Not knowing much about this field, digging into pubmed, trying to find which is a good citation and which is not, is deadly. Thanks for the recommendation. I don't have time to beat up on trolls now. You evil person you.OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions 20:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings Casliber. I wanted to let you know that we are getting closer to automating some of the collaboration tasks. I am currently working with someone on a bot task here if you want to take a look. They asked me for some language to send to the associated projects when an article is nominated/selected and I was hoping you wouldn't mind reviewing to make sure they make sense since your the other major maintainer at the moment.
The messages I was thinking of are: For the nomination:
The
here
.
For the selection:
The
here
.
with a title of:
"
United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month
I wanted to let you know that I just left a bunch of notes on the Bill of Rights article about improvements we could make. I am going to start focusing some effort on that in the next few days. Please let me know if you have any suggestions. I am going to contact some of the major contributors to the article and solicate their help as well. --
Hi Casliber. In case you are not watching the page, I have left a request for the project here. Regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They are very good questions to find out answers to. Question is who and how..... Casliber (talk·contribs) 00:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jennifer Connelly FAC nomination
Hi! I read your concerns about the information lacks on the article. I added some more info about A Beautiful Mind part. You should check it out since I kinda tried to fill the lack you pointed out.
As of the Requiem part (the other major personal role), me and the other nominator considered it is complete pretty much, that's why I still didn't modify it.
--Gunt50 (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, about the comments on Jennifer Connelly's FAC, we have tried to assess your concerns and it would be helpful if you could revisit the article again and either support or oppose the promotion to FA. Many thanks for your initial comments and your time.--GDuwenTell me! 02:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYK reminder
Hi, just a reminder.... You haven't listed a review with your DYK nomination of
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi. If you got a little time, could you please have a look here? I have nominated the article above. Best regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Red-cheeked Parrot
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hello, did you find anything? I guess if we can't find an origin of the name, we could move on. LittleJerry (talk) 01:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you gonna continue to review the article when you're done with the White-bellied Sea Eagle article? LittleJerry (talk) 03:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be there soon. There is a bunch of stuff you can't access that I can that really should be in the article. Sorry about the delay. Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Invisible Rail
Feel free to improve. Already at DYK. BarkingMoon (talk) 01:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya, you previously participated in a Peer Review of this article - it's now at FAC. I was wondering if you could perhaps give it a once-over with some copyediting, to improve prose? I'd really appreciate it, as that was something raised at the FAC. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 04:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance you could have a look at this? -- Cirt (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great work, and great hook--it hooked me! Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, thanks - the kicker will be to see how many passers by it piques the interest of. Many of mine are spectacularly unsuccessful in that regard... :) Casliber (talk·contribs) 15:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you could always practice by writing more DYK articles--385 really isn't a lot. A quick look at your talk page shows that between 10 and 16 June you had NOTHING on the front page--you better have a good excuse for that or I'm blocking you for sloth! Anyway, even my wife liked your hook (or maybe she pretended--it is Father's Day after all), and I am curious to see how many hits you get. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 17:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4.1 k! Bravo! Drmies (talk) 03:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I think only a handful of mine have made 5k before, so pretty close is pretty good :) Casliber (talk·contribs) 04:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Try wrapping your wildlife in bacon... Drmies (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Eucalyptus expressa
On 20 June 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eucalyptus expressa, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Wollemi Stringybark, a tree that grows to 45 metres (148 ft) high northwest of Sydney, remains officially undescribed? If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thanks for looking at this article of the wonderful big stringybark tree beside the Putty Road. Yesterday I was on a bushwalk and one person had a most derogatory opinion of Wikipedia, saying "no-one trusts Wikipedia". I tried to convince them otherwise. (We were looking at the flowering Boronia ledifolia). Today, I went south of the harbour, and tried to find
Blechnum indicum. Two swamp ferns collected by Joseph Banks & Daniel Solander in 1770 near Botany Bay. Trying to find rare plants in situ is a guarantee of failure and disappointment. So many times it is a worthy attempt, but not quite achieving what was hoped for. However, today, it was a success. Found them both, (couldn't believe it, but it was true). And what a beautiful day to be outdoors. cheers, Peter Poyt448 (talk) 06:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
I had similar good luck. We had a weekend away at Thirlmere, and I raced along Starlights Trail in Nattai NP, and found Banksia paludosa subsp. astrolux which grows there and nowhere else... Casliber (talk·contribs) 06:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Protection of
Borderline Personality Disorder
Looking at the log, if you exclude the edits of User:71.253.28.198 the vandalism doesn't appear excessive. It seems like this IP address should have been blocked, at the page unprotected. Reub2000 (talk) 02:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ash cloud over Who
Hi Casliber. Running into rough flying at Who (pronoun). The problem is fully explained at the talkpage (excuse my evident exasperation there!):
"Of the rule, the citations have written ; but they suffer no explanation thereof. The rule is improper."
This is a simple case of an unfounded folk-opinion, pitted against the article's clear argument and citations. I've called for editors to work on this, but it's a bit of a backwater and so far I'm on my own. I think three months of semi-protection would help. Does that sound like a plan? I'll add some further citations, and improve the structure and section headings in the meantime.
Cas, thanks for attempting a moderate solution. I wish that would suffice; but see the response we get.
The proposed text doesn't even begin to make sense:
Who(m)(so)ever can take a relative clause, the relative pronoun of which is so, it being commonly omitted, and now no longer productive as a pronoun since Old English. [...]
By no stretch of linguistic imagination is that so a pronoun, for a start.
I've done a few copyedits to Peregrine falcon, but it could still do with a good look-over. It's also got an in-line external link and a "citation needed" in it. Nice article, just hasn't been very closely watched for a while, it seems. --JN466 11:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I figured it might, since it was promoted in 2007...Casliber (talk·contribs) 19:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Admin type question
Casliber, you appear to be on the checkuser list, so a quick question: Can I shoot you an email about whether or not I might be able to set up a "street legal" second account that I do NOT identify or link to my existing one -- but that doesn't violate the sockpuppet rule? Guidelines suggest it's possible, but only under certain circumstances that I don't want to discuss on-wiki. I have a legitimate privacy reason to do this, but am NOT doing it now and have no intention of doing so unless I get an affirmative green light from TPTB. Montanabw(talk) 22:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
asking to bend the rules because ones bias has been pointed out citing privacy is worrying. it also appears rather inconsistant with my last link. How can someone believably cite privacy concerns when they have already disclosed that information themselves?
87.112.73.162 (talk) 02:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My comment above has NOTHING to do with editing of horse articles; it is an entirely different issue. Montanabw(talk) 18:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, the 1952 Winter Olympics is at FAC. It has been reviewed by Dweller who indicated the writing was "buggy". Dweller suggested an independent copy edit prior to the close of the FAC would suffice and gave your name as a suggestion for someone who could do this. I sincerely appreciate even considering it. The article is not terribly long and I hope the request isn't onerous. If you could undertake this effort I would be most grateful. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 20:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not great timing as I have a lot on my plate but will try to chisel out some time to do it later today. Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cas, you are a star. --Dweller (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I got the advice to contact an administrator that can handle sockpuppetry questions. I have a good feeling user ENCRYPTMATRON who is revert-warring on Anton Abele is a former blocked vandal. He has knowledge of Wikipedia that no "new user" can have. He also is aggressive and doesnt listen to anyones advice. So if you could check out the user for vandal IPs I would be greatful. Thanks!--BabbaQ (talk) 17:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anton Abele article has now also been fully blocked from editing because of the users edits. So im quite positive of the above mentioned request.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cas, I started this Oz mushroom article for the sole purpose of (soon) nominating one of its pictures for FPC. Any chance you'd be interested in helping fill it out for a DYK? (assuming there's something interesting to say about it!) I have no Australian field guides so my sources are already tapped... Sasata (talk) 20:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
like getting blood out of a bloody stone... :/ Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for trying ... looks like this one's not destined for DYK fame—good-looking but boring and little-known. Sasata (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I wake up this morning to find the article over 1500 characters, and the DYK already submitted and approved—nice work! Sasata (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Content uber dramah
Will you please take a look at the
A330 for FAC? A young user has put a lot of work into it and it has been through multiple FACs. I know there is this...thing...between FAC and Project Aviation...but I think this is worthwhile stuff and hope it moves us forward to better things for both. Love to have your critique, help, whatever! I respect your Lionism and know that others do too. That...plus I have a totally cool (kid you not) plant to interest you in, in the future. TCO (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
You are a kind heart.
Here is the plant: [3]. It is one of the few organisms that uses fluorine in its biochemistry. There becomes a connect to the fluorine FAC.TCO (talk) 04:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to add in hte edit summary that I thought the hook was in fact interesting. If you really feel strongly about it, revert away. Casliber (talk·contribs) 10:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In many cases, DYK claims are simple statements of fact. It's not extraordinary to me that people move from country A to country B. Nor is it extraordinary to me that people have been moving for centuries. I could pick dozens of country pairs and make the same claim.
I won't revert it because it's unfair to pick on just this one claim. The overall standard at DYK is very low and this one is no further away from Selection criteria 3 than many others that aren't reviewed properly.
What is extraordinary to me is how easy it is to raise the quality with just a little more time spent in debate. My only request is for more time, there's no deadline. Do you have a time guideline that you use? If so, I'd like to work with you to agree an appropriate increase. Lightmouse (talk) 11:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a deadline - if you want to bring it back and discuss it some more, that's fine by me. Casliber (talk·contribs) 12:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think it is rather interesting, but that the focus of interest in the hook could be intensified with a little more info. Tony(talk) 12:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Henderson Petrel
I shouldn't read newspapers. Got caught up reading a report in
Trindade Petrel for p.heraldica a bit iffy (See the detail on Gadfly petrel). This is up your alley, mate, and you might consider putting it on the backburner for a wise glance-over later this year. The RSCB's rat-extermination campaign though is due for August, and there's DYK potential for you there if someone can fix these eff-ups.Yrs in gratuitous labour, the bloke with a dreadful rep for being the I/P blowin Lawson wrote about in The Captain of the Push. Nishidani (talk) 12:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
I have a clear opinion so wore my editor hat on - someone else can play admin. Casliber (talk·contribs) 01:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Noetica
Please remind Noetica that it is not done to refactor comments without consent, as here. Actual free discussion seems to be evolving a position in the middle, as it is supposed to do. Is there a clearer policy on this than WP:Refactoring talk pages? SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 14:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can see why he has done it, and he has left a marker stating where the original statement was. Complex discussions with more than three or four participants need rigorous attention to structure to avoid walls of text. These very quickly grow to a size which dissuades other editors maybe less familiar with the material from taking part. A diff included might make it clearer. This is covered under Wikipedia:Refactoring_talk_pages#Refactoring_overview item 2 - restructuring, with the caveat that care must be taken not to change the meaning. Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can see why he's done it, both in good faith, and in bad faith. That particular move destroys the meaning of the comment, since it uses this and I agree and the move separates from the post which those refer to. If this happens again, I will take it elsewhere.SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 14:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's late here. I need to sleep. That page is, erm, busy....Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is; we may disagree on how much of that is bossy editors making up for "lost" time. No rush; good night. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 15:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you; as long as such people will continue to claim
Clitocybe geotropa should be named Infundibulicybe geotropa, as we recognize the genus Infundibulicybe. I use the term "we" very loosely here, as it was I who made that genus article, but it is the preferred name used by Index Fungorum (and by extension, the Dictionary of the Fungi), who seem to have accepted Harmaja's concept of the genus. If you do not dispute this, would you mind moving the name over the redirect? Sasata (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Yeah, I ummed and aahed about that. I was pondering why the move hadn't been adopted wholesale, and my only conclusion is that geotropa wasn't included in the mega- 117 clade study, hence there isa wait for molecular confirmation (???) I don't mind changing it. Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In that 117 clades paper, the Clitocybes they included were dealbata, clavipes, connata, glacialis, lateritia, and odorata —none of which are in Harmaja's Infundibulicybe. At least one well-respected group has adopted the new naming (and used molecular data to justify naming a new species). There's only a few recent reports of the taxon in the literature: this group is interested in chemical analysis (
PMID 20167240) rather than taxonomy; in this paper, they refer to the species as Infundibulicybe; in this Persian paper, the old name is used. I think we should use the new name and help the rest of them catch up :) Sasata (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Jack Merridew's continuing stalking
I am astonished by per this edit, an Indonesian IP compatible with the location of Davenbelle/Diyarbakir/Moby Dick/Jack merridew (god he has FAR too many sockpuppet accounts) which is stalking my contribution. --
I am addressing you as you were the last person to change the protection on WP:MOS.
I have prepared replacement text for the following sections of WP:MOS:
10 Chronological items
11 Numbers
I used the same format that I used for
12 Units of Measurement.
The discussion page on WP:MOS is so full of other discussions that any discussions on the change that I am proposing get archived before they come to a conclusion (nobody gets excited about these changes). Previously I would have been WP:BOLD, but now I find that I cannot follow this course of action. Would you please:
Eyeball what I have written and let me know if you think it worth following up
Suggest an Admin who I should liaise with regarding this change.
It is my view that all the sections on WP:MOS should have this sort of format and that the meat of the sections be in subsidiary articles leaving WP:MOS as purely an overview article with no subsections (apart from maybe 1. General Principals).
I would just lay it out succinctly there and ask who supports it. Keep an eye on the debate however. Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination as a
United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month
We are half way through 2011, and entering the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; the semi-finals are upon us! Points scored in the interim (29/30 June) may be counted towards next round, but please do not update your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. 16 contestants remain, and all have shown dedication to the project to reach this far. Our round leader was Casliber (submissions) who, among other things, successfully passed three articles through featured article candidates and claimed an impressive 29 articles at Did You Know, scoring 555 points. Casliber led pool D. Pool A was led by Wizardman (submissions), claiming points for a featured article, a featured list and seven good article reviews, while pool C was led by Eisfbnore (submissions), who claimed for two good articles, ten articles at Did You Know and four good article reviews. They scored 154 and 118 respectively. Pool B was by far our most competitive pool; six of the eight competitors made it through to round 4, with all of them scoring over 100 points. The pool was led by Hurricanehink (submissions), who claimed for, among other things, three featured articles and five good articles. In addition to the four pool leaders, 12 others (the four second places, and the 8 next highest overall) make up our final 16. The lowest scorer who reached round 4 scored 76 points; a significant increase on the 41 needed to reach round 3. Eight of our semi-finalists scored at least twice as much as this.
No points were awarded this round for featured pictures, good topics or In the News, and no points have been awarded in the whole competition for featured topics, featured portals or featured sounds. Instead, the highest percentage of points has come from good articles. Featured articles, despite their high point cost, are low in number, and so, overall, share a comparable number of points with Did You Know, which are high in number but low in cost. A comparatively small but still considerable number of points come from featured lists and good article reviews, rounding out this round's overall scores.
We would again like to thank
Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews
. Please do keep using it, and please do help by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup.
Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here, for those interested, though it appears that neither are completely accurate at this time. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
