G'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)[reply]
- There was another nearby (about half a metre) which was 8cm tall, so I would go with Ramaria lorithamnus. It was taken in rainforest, was very little Eucalypt around. Do you want me to upload it to wiki? Thanks. --liquidGhoul 11:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey 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)[reply]
- That would be friggin' trés bién. The first one that would be absolutely great to get a clarification on is Agaricus which was called Psalliota in many texts fro many years and I've been mystified as to why. Other articles I intend cleaning up are Amanita muscaria, which is the one I intended taking to FA first but it just didn't come together well, Gyromitra esculenta as a future FA, Agaricus bisporus as a future FA, and cleaning up the destroying angels - Amanita virosa, Amanita bisporiga and Amanita verna. Boletus edulis would be a good one to check too. let me know if anything interesting pops up. I'll see ifd I can think of any other taxonomic quagmires later today. Work just got real busy :( cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 02:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally, that's pretty arcane and only relevant to genus articles, or species that were tightly involving in defining them (for example, there seems to be an odd debate over the multiple type species for Amanita). I'll look up Agaricus, Amanita (since A. muscaria's the current type) and Psalliota. I'll also dig up the ref so you can look it up yourself, with any chance. Circeus 04:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool, keen to see what pops up. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 05:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I only quickly thumbed through it and noted the full ref (Donk, M.A. (1962). "The generic names proposed for Agaricaceae". Beiheifte zur Nova Hedwigia. 5: 1–320. ISSN 0078-2238.) because I forgot about it until the last minute. Psalliota looks like a classic synonym case. It shares the same type with Agaricus, and might be older. Circeus 01:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weird! I thought Linnaeus was calling all sorts of things Agaricus so I wonder how it could predate that really....anyway I am curious.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, First thing I have to say is... Damn, 18th-19th century taxonomy and nomenclature of fungi is a right mess. Whose bright idea was it to give fungi 3 starting dates in the ICBN???
LOTS of "per" in citation here. See [1]
- On Agaricus
- Etym.: Possibly "from Agarica of Sarmatica, a district of Russia" (!). Note also Greek ἀγαρικ[1]όν "a sort of tree fungus" (There's been an Agaricon Adans. genus, treated by Donk in Persoonia 1:180)
- Donk says Linnaeus' name is devalidated (so that the proper author citation apparently is "L. per Fr., 1821") because Agaricus was not linked to Tournefort's name (Linnaeus places both Agaricus Dill. and Amanita Dill. in synonymy), but truely a replacement for Amanita Dill., which would require that A. quercinus, not A. campestris be the type. This question compounded by the fact that Fries himself used Agaricus roughly in Linnaeus' sense (which leads to issues with Amanita), and that A. campestris was eventually excluded from Agaricus by Karsten and was apparently in Lepiota at the time Donk wrote this, commenting that a type conservation might become necessary.
- All proposals to conserve Agaricus against Psalliota or vice versa have so far been considered superfluous.
- On Lepiota
- Etym. Probably greek λεπις, "scale"
- Basionym is Agaricus sect. Lepiota Pers. 1797, devalidated by later starting date, so the citation is (Pers.) per S.F.Gray. It was only described, without species, and covered an earlier mentioned, but unnamed group of ringed, non-volvate species, regardless of spore color. Fries restricted the genus to white-spored species, and made into a tribe, which was, like Amanita repeatedly raised to genus rank.
- The type is unclear. L. procera is considered the type (by Earle, 1909). Agaricus columbrinus (L. clypeolarus) was also suggested (by Singer, 1946) to avoid the many combination involved otherwise in splitting Macrolepiota, which include L. procera. Since both species had been placed into different genera prior to their selection (in Leucocoprinus and Mastocephalus respectively), Donk observes that a conservation will probably be needed, expressing support for Singer's emendation.
- On Psalliota
- Etym.: ψάλιον, "ring"
- Psalliota was first published by Fries (1821) as trib. Psalliota. The type is Agaricus campestris (widely accepted, except by Earle, who proposed A. cretaceus). Kummer (not Quélet, who merely excluded Stropharia) was the first to elevate the tribe to a genus. Basically, Psalliota was the tribe containing the type of Agaricus, so when separated, it should have caused the rest of the genus to be renamed, not what happened. It seems to be currently not considered valid, or a junior homotypic synonym, anyway the explanation is that it was raised by (in retrospect) erroneously maintaining the tribe name.
- On Amanita
- Etym.: Possibly from Amanon,a mountain in Cilicia.
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 [The species now known as Amanita caesarea] was not mentioned."
- With Agaricus L. in use, Amanita was a nomen nudum per modern standard, so Persoon gave it a new life unrelated to its previous incarnations, and that is finally published after a starting date by Hooker (the citation is Pers. per Hook., 1821). He reuses Withering's 1801 definition (A botanical arrangement of British plants, 4th ed.). "The name Amnita has been considered validly published on different occasions, depending on various considerations." Proposed types include (given as Amanita. Sometimes they were selected as Agarici):
- A. livida Pers. (By Earle, in 1909). Had been excluded in Vaginata or Amanitopsis and could not be chosen.
- A. muscaria Pers. (By Clemens & Shear, 1931) for the genus (1801) from Synopsis fungorum, was generally transferred to the one from Hooker's Flora of Scotland, which is currently considered the valid publication of Amanita (or was in the 50s).
- A. phalloides (by Singer, 1936) for the 1801 genus.
- A.bulbosa (by Singer & Smith, 1946) for Gray's republication. This is incorrect as Gray's A. bulbosa is a synonym of A. citrina. Some authors consider Gray to be the first valid republisher.
- A. caeserea (by Gilbert, 1940). Troublesome because not known personally to Persoon or Fries.
Donk concludes the earliest valid type is A. muscaria, the species in Hooker, adding that he'd personally favor A. citrina.
- The name has been republished three times in 1821: in Hooker, Roques and Gray (in that order). Roques maintained Persoon's circumscription, including Amanitopsis and Volvaria. Gray excluded Amanitopsis and Volvariella into Vaginata. Right after, Fries reset the name by reducing the genus to a tribe of Agaricus, minus pink-spored Volvariella. This tribe became a subgenus, than genus via various authors, Quélet, altough not the first, often being attributed the change. Sometimes it was used in a Persoonian sense (whether that is a correct use according to ICBN is not clear to me).
- Homonyms of Amanita Pers. are Amanita adans. (1763, devalidated) and Amanita (Dill) Rafin. (1830)
- On Boletus
- Not including (Not in Agaricaceae, sorry).
Phew! Circeus 18:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope you intend to clean that prose ASAP? It's definitely not article-worthy as is. Circeus 01:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm working on it. Got distracted this morning...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cas, I don't suppose you can dig up a photo of B. victoriae? The article has two images, but both are intrinsic to the taxonomic history narrative, and I am loathe to remove either into the taxobox. By the way, you might like to have a read of the taxonomy section there; there's an interesting story there that you won't have read in anything of George's. Hesperian 13:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought the same (re: baxteri). But Bentham gives them both as victoriae in Flora Australiensis, and if I trust anyone, I trust him. Hesperian 23:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Curiouser and curiouser! I misread those sources - it is only the later seed that is attributed to Drummond. To be flowering in 1835 that seed must have reached England by 1832 at the latest. But Drummond didn't start sending plants and seed back to England until conscripted by Mangles to do so in 1835, and B. speciosa is not in Meissner's 1852 list of species collected by Drummond. As far as I know, Baxter only visited the south coast. I don't think Fraser went further north than the Swan River. Molloy never strayed far from Augusta. Hügel didn't reach Australia until the end of 1833; too late. Where oh where did those seeds come from? Perhaps they were B. baxteri; maybe that's why George has ignored the whole episode. Gosh this is exciting. Hesperian 00:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HTML 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)[reply]
- Hmmm...thanks for the tip. I'll try that next. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for indulging me, dude. :-) Hesperian 00:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If, like me, you're stuck with a laptop without a numeric pad with ALT functionality, n- and m-dashes are the two firsts characters after "insert" in the list placed under the edit window. Circeus 22:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, I've edited my keyboard layout for "easy" dashes with a little Microsoft utility (yes, I use Windows). It takes a while to set up, but now I can add en and em dashes with only two keystrokes—quite an improvement for WP editing :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I add shortkeys all the time on various programs. If i used a reallot of weird characters, I'd totally do that to have across windows. Circeus 16:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I just noticed a bit of a chronology problem around this bit "If the chick hatches before the mother's return..." Is it normal for the mother to arrive before the hatching? There is a event chronology problem around it. Take a look at it at leisure. Shyamal (talk) 13:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tricky to word this bit. The 'if' applies here solely to that sentence. i.e the father feeds the curd if the mother doesn't come early without any hint of how likely or unlikely this is. The next sentence gives the chick age range (but not likelihood) upon her return. The text didn't have this. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Cas, thanks for asking... No I haven't been in any big dispute so no pb on that level. Adminship would be hard to justify presently as I haven't been editing much during the last few months (check my contributions) apart from responding to various requests on my talk page and uploading images. And then, if I get all these new tools how am I gonna be able to bother you again in your talk page ;) ?ArthurWeasley (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I do appreciate what you wrote to me and Firs, but he attacked me on WR, he blocked me despite our past dispute, and he's got a vendetta against me lately. And with respect to Petey, no one is kicking the ass of that little brat, Pilcha who's ruined the article. I'm not going there. I'll stick with the medical articles. Thanks for the calming drugs, but sorry, it didn't work.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mate, thanks for your constructive comments on Talk:Henoch-Schönlein purpura. As you will see, I have actioned almost all your recommendations. Let me know if there's anything else I need to do. We have never been through formal peer review, but I don't have the feeling that anything will come of this. If we were ever to proceed to FA, I would need to get an external peer review as I have done on coeliac disease. JFW | T@lk 12:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
err... where was I? <scratches head> --Dweller (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Gyromitra esculenta...a headache compounded by a lack of information on etymology...I've reffed a few bits but please give more input. I'm off to cook pancakes for brekky - 7am here. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Really struggling. It's difficult to be interested in the topic when it's so dreadfully jargon laden and (duh!) there's no story to be told. Is there an FA quality article on a similar topic, that I can compare this to? --Dweller (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I guess you either like it or you don't. It is helpful to have you note what is jargon though. Amanita phalloides was the first fungus featured article. I will have a look at what you've done. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: Do you think Amanita muscaria is an easier bet? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think any fungus should be capable of reaching FA and my personal lack of interest shouldn't be an issue. Actually, it's a challenge. If I can make it interesting and understandable to me, it should be on the way. I'll check out phalloides and see what it's got that this one may not have. One idea I have is to dissect the article structure and reassemble the same info in a less scientific but more interest-grabbing order. For example, a section prominently located that pulls together all the poison stuff, another on cooking etc changes the article from a feel of "science entry in specialist publication" to "encyclopedia entry" for me. Or do you think this would be dumbing down? --Dweller (talk) 09:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Heck, theres nothing to lose so have a play. Even if it needs rearranging later, some dejargonising and increased readability would be a boon methinks. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, 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)[reply]
- This is the great thing about uncertainty. Lacking an answer, the reports of Maimonides, Mary Douglas and the other guy mentioned are fascinating.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Scotish pork taboo is a remarkable article! Thanks for that, lol. Alastair Haines (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- Someone has tagged the Religious restrictions on the consumption of pork for OR, though the talk page seems to indicate it is for a different reason....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm... makes me more dubious, but I'll check. btw... I'm not Alastair! --Dweller (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have found good stuff, including online version of Maimonides text. I'll dump it here for you to use as you wish.
I maintain that the food which is forbidden by the Law is unwholesome. There is nothing among the forbidden kinds of food whose injurious character is doubted, except pork (Lev. xi. 7), and fat (ibid. vii. 23). But also in these cases the doubt is not justified. For pork contains more moisture than necessary [for human food], and too much of superfluous matter. The principal reason why the Law forbids swine's flesh is to be found in the circumstance that its habits and its food are very dirty and loathsome. It has already been pointed out how emphatically the Law enjoins the removal of the sight of loathsome objects, even in the field and in the camp; how much more objectionable is such a sight in towns. But if it were allowed to eat swine's flesh, the streets and houses would be more dirty than any cesspool, as may be seen at present in the country of the Franks.[2]
So, Maimonides argues "pork contains more moisture than necessary [for human food], 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)[reply]
Please weigh in here if you have a chance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have around 1200 pages on my watchlist and they garner quite a bit of vandalism, and since you're an admin I was wondering if you could grant be access to rollback to make this aspect of being here quicker? cheers Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll have a look how to do it but more than happy to. I'd also be happy to nom you for adminship if you want. You should pass easily as longas you haven't been blocked or in any revert wars or other acrimony. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been offered a run at adminship before and declined. The process seems gruelling, and my forte and interest is in content, not the minute details of policy, and I personally doubt I'd pass with my occasionally erratic approach to editing (busy some months, off in the field in others). Page moving would be useful but I all in all I can't be bothered. But thanks for the offer. And thanks for rollback. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, Shyamal's points were valid. Feel free to toss me to the wolves. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hang on, I'll set up a template. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Accepted. *gulp* Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ) Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Casliber, you may want to reply to this. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- About that request -- I must concur with Henrik -- all he seems to have done is edit while logged out. If you look in the RFCU, the only IP that was confirmed hasn't really collaborated inappropriately with Henrik. There was one article the IP added PROD to that Henrik AfD'ed, but they didn't both take part in the debate. And there was another article where the IP and Henrik both reverted, but not in violation of 3RR, and moreover, over two years ago. It is not against policy for a user to edit while not logged in. I haven't seen any AfDs where both users participated, or any edit wars they were both involved in, or any block evasion, nothing like that. So why was there a block? I've looked thoroughly through Henrik's recent contributions and I haven't found anything that was even suspicious. Mangojuicetalk 19:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Mangojuice, as I filed that RFCU a while back, I would like to elaborate on my reasons for filing it: in addition to the confirmed IP that he admittedly somestimes edits on when logged out and which has a fairly extensive block history, another blocked account was also confirmed to be editing on that IP along with Henrik. Some of my other concerns though deal with somewhat unproductive edits: thinking AfD is a "vote" rather than discussion, assisting an IP in starting an AfD rather than just encouraging the IP to get an account, arguing to keep when providing a deletion rationale, sweaing in deletion argument, confrontational manner of asking a question, use of word "crap" in edit summary, use of "idiotic" in edit summary, sarcastic comment in AfD, suggests "nobody cares" about an article that editors created and defended in two AfDs, copy and paste and/or rapid delete posts (03:47, 11 January 2008, 03:49, 11 January 2008, 03:52, 11 January 2008, 03:54, 11 January 2008, 03:55, 11 January 2008, 03:56, 11 January 2008, etc.), sarcastic reply in AfD, sarcastic reply in AfD, etc. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All of which, even put together, seems like no problem. Much less problematic to me than your RFCU report. Henrik has a clean block record, and his user talk page history shows that he has never been complained to about his conduct. From what I can tell, he's a bit confrontational but jeez - that doesn't make him likely to be a vandal. Mangojuicetalk 20:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Mangojuice, I noticed a few instances of similar edits with the IP and saw that the IP had also been used by an ideffed vandal account (Mean person). A few other IPs seemed similar and given the month long gaps in contribution history, the account looked suspicious, which is why I filed the RFCU, which may (if I'm mistaken, I apologize) be the first one of those I ever filed. At the time, we were uncovering all sorts of sock accounts with similar anti-list/in popular culture edits (such as Eyrian, Burntsauce, Dannycali, et al), which further raised my suspicions of this account's edits. While the RFCU is old, you'll notice that Henrik stopped editing again back in January or so only to return again the past few days. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I left you a bunch of homework there; you're the man in that cat :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you a bureaucrat? Basketball110 pick away... 00:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope - the list is thisaway --> Wikipedia:Bureaucrats. What you need one for? I may be able to help. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No (I don't need one), I was just wondering. I think you would make a good one. Basketball110 pick away... 01:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Haha, thanks. I'm a little bit busy at present but will think about it :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your WP:FAC comment I added a brief bit of background on the subject matter of est and the chronology of the various organizations involved. Also commented about your point re: "Legacy" - it is an interesting through but I have been through lots of sources and I am not sure there is much more to say on the legacy issue. Cirt (talk) 11:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for striking those two - again not sure if it is possible to address the third point other than what is already present in the article, I've looked through lots of databases for sources on this book and what's present in the article is pretty much what I have found. Cirt (talk) 12:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like your "profound impact" wording so I went with that, also noted that at the FAC page. Cirt (talk) 12:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed the "superficial" wording, as sort of vague and doesn't add much to that sentence. Cirt (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per your FAC recommendation I added some background info from Fenwick re: her motivation for writing the book. Cirt (talk) 13:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If/when your FAC comments have been addressed to your satisfaction it might be helpful to enclose our thread with {{hat}} and {{hab}} - our discussion is getting sorta long. As for benefit the author received from writing the work, to the best of my knowledge this is not specifically mentioned in the book itself, nor in the secondary sources that I have been able to find. Cirt (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don' worry, the nom's only been up 4 hours - got plenty a' time, and yes I'll do one of those funny template thingies. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, just that I have been trying to address a lot of your points as they crop up. Cirt (talk) 13:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The last para starts to discuss some form of legacy. It would be nice (if there are sources) to expand upon this - what is this book's legacy and has it influenced current self-help thinking? If Landmark forum cited it, how did Forum evolve from est and were the changes attributable to this book at all? What about other areas? Or is it largely forgotten and of temporal significance to the 70s only?
I believe I have addressed all of these points with the addition of the new material into the article. As I said, there really isn't much more in the sources that goes into this, and there aren't sources which could back up whether any changes from est to Forum to Landmark were attributable specifically to the book itself, but there were many other factors at play and that much detail is starting to stray off this particular topic, and would be better addressed at the articles Erhard Seminars Training, Werner Erhard and Associates, and Landmark Education. Cirt (talk) 13:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm..I will ask someone who was familiar with alot of this stuff over the weekend to see if tehre is anything else she can think of. Don't worry, if she can't there is no problem. If she can she hasa library jam-packed with psychological and psychiatric texts. Relax, I'll get back to you. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I can guarantee you that there is a ton more stuff that could potentially go into those three articles Erhard Seminars Training, Werner Erhard and Associates, and Landmark Education - just not sure if there are that many more sources that directly discuss this book. However I would always welcome more material from additional secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources that analyze/discuss the book, so keep me posted. Cirt (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update
Any word from your friend? Also, some other points have cropped up at the FAC discussion, and I am doing my best to try to address them. Any chance you could help me out? Cirt (talk) 05:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- She told me that the est thing was mainly an american phenomenon which didn't make much of an impact in Australia or the UK. She hadn't read the book nor heard of it. So it wasn't a huge help. Maybe highlighting that it was an American phenomenon would be good. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Does she have a source we could cite to say it was an American phenomenon? That's probably pretty much accurate, but I don't think I've come across a source that says that. So have I addressed your comments at the FAC page enough that you feel the article is FA-worthy? Cirt (talk) 07:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, this was a verbal impression she had. Sorry. I do agree it is worth putting in to help with the context. I haven't looked at the article and there are a few SOS's out there currently. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I'll keep looking on a source for that info. Thanks for your input, Cirt (talk) 08:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Casliber, you may want to join this project. You have provided helpful comments in related discussions and I think you would be an asset. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e 17:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
EC! [2] I overwrote your changes as that old version was a 99% chance of being a copyvio. And I added refs, so no banners up the top now. :) Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I only changed a couple of words before giving up...no wuckers. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you get a chance, could you move the Piping plover page to Piping Plover, per WP:Birds capitalizing all parts of a species name? Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 05:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[3] Shyamal (talk) 07:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bagel
Template:Bagel of Zion
Thank you for your comments on my RFA. Even though it failed with 28 supports, 42 opposes, and 15 neutrals, I am grateful for the suggestions and advice I have received and I do hope to improve as a Wikipedian. If you ever need my help in any endeavor, feel free to drop me a line. --Sharkface217 19:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cas, just in case you weren't aware, Dweller's away from Wiki for a while, I'll attempt to deal with your comments at the above FAC, so I'd be grateful if you could work with me to get me up to speed on anything I don't quite get! All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hog damn. The quote is simply reported in the only online source I can find as "a newspaper quote", so I can't do 'owt about that. The professional/amateur issue would be WP:OR if I added anything, I don't have the paper book which Dweller is using as a reference. So I'm stumped. Still, as Dweller told me, it can wait, even fail, until he's able to come back. Not sure what's best now, just wait I guess. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RL issues still pressing, but will be around for a bit today/tomorrow. What do you need help with? Cas, thanks for all your help with this article. Sorry, but fungus issues will have to wait a bit longer as this enforced wikibreak will go on for a while yet. Thanks for all your efforts with the NCFC history - see my note to Tony this morning. Cheers --Dweller (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This?
'The Cits are dead but the Canaries are very much alive'.
I can dig it up out of the book. What's the other? --Dweller (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, that doesn't sound too serious. I think I can deal with it. --Dweller (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Does that do the trick? --Dweller (talk) 13:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would, you, mind, checking, if, I'm, overstating, the, case,? Thanks. , --Dweller (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see this? Scientific citations in Wikipedia. Thought you might get an especially big kick out of the fifth bullet... --JayHenry (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Doh! See it listed a few threads up. Pretty cool, regardless. --JayHenry (talk) 01:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Cas, sorry I left just before we started on pork - I thought I'd apologise in case this was annoying to you. In any case, I really don't see any real reason to come back as of yet. I've ummed and arred over whether I should just force myself back into Wikipedia, but I'm just not feeling it. With advances in my profession and other activities and family members to attend to (As well as that wedding to plan) I just thought I'd let you know, you being my closest 'friend' on here, that despite the note on my user page, I probably won't be returning to edit in this lifetime. Hopefully I'm wrong, but I think my job on here is done. I might nominate Andre Kertesz for main page on his birthday, but other than that I thank you for being nice to me on here and helping me get through some difficult moments. I wish the best for you and your family. Cheers and sincerly (I'd say love at the risk of sounding camp), Spawn Man (talk) 06:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good luck with your wedding. This place can be a curse and markedly distracting. No I am not annoyed, you need to look after yourself first. if you nominate the article I will second it. Good luck. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You recommended that an RfC be filed on RobJ1981 as per the wikiquette alert against him. Since you were the administrator that recommended that an RfC be filed, I thought I would bring it to your attention.
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RobJ1981
McJeff (talk) 08:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G'day esteemed person who has expressed interest in Sydney based meetups at this page (I hope that's the correct wording for the formal greeting!!). You may have heard that Australia is to have its very own 'chapter' of the Wikimedia Foundation - and further, there's a meeting coming up to discuss / enact the chapter's incorporation (details here). I'm afraid that I don't know too much about the details of what this entails, other than having a private hope that we might get a secret handshake, and maybe cheap coffee at wikimania (this is a poor attempt at humour - I'm sure that the Chapter's do great work, and it's a good thing that Australia is to have one).
If you're interested in meeting up this weekend (the set date is the 20th) - or later, then please do head over here and sign up, or make a comment at the talk page... the drive to create the chapter has largely come from another town in Australia that I'm afraid I haven't actually heard much about.. and anything they can do.... right? - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 11:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you...
...for your participation in my RFA, which closed with 85 supports, 2 neutrals and 1 oppose. I'm extremely grateful for all the the kind comments from so many brilliant Wikipedians I've come to respect and admire, as well as many others I've not yet had the pleasure of working with, and I'll do my best to put my shiny new mop and bucket to good use! Once again, thank you ;) EyeSerenetalk 16:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Hello! I have added the 2006 FIFA World Cup article to peer review. Please feel free to make any suggestions on how the article can be improved. Thanks in advance for your time :) ARTYOM 20:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I've requested a peer review of aspirin, and I plan on improving it to stand as an FAC. Any suggestions you have are most welcome! CrazyChemGuy (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The 1999 Sydney hailstorm page has gone crazy with vandalism recently. Is it to the point of being worth semi-protecting? HWV 258 03:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- vandals...aaah, bless 'em. The standard has been to not have the mainpage article protected. Don't worry about it -once the day is over, run it by the WT:FA page and see what everyone thinks. It is to be expected. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Cas. This article has been languishing in Peer Review for two weeks with only one actual reviewer. May I ask you to read it? Ruslik (talk) 07:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have been a bit busy with college stuff but have read about 150 of the book's pages, there is some nice stuff about the possible evolution line of the parrot and quite a bit on conservation efforts, I will try to summarize those in a subpage by sunday. It was surprising to know that the dinosaurs project is semi-active, a few months ago they were consitently present on the FAC page. - Caribbean~H.Q. 15:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I will begin posting the material on a subpage (probably titled User:Caribbean H.Q./Amazon) before adding anything to the article since we will merge a few thousand bytes to the current version and the prose will need to be tweaked in order to have a comprehensive final product. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds like a plan then :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I genuinely never expected to become an admin here. How strange. So, anyway, is it expected that I create a message and dump it on everyone's page? I'm not that desperate to boost my editcount! Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alot of folks aren't happy with the spamnotes. You can just stick a banner on the top of your page explaining and thanking all I guess. It is no big deal. I was nominated by surprise as well. Makes things alot easier though - protecting pages, making tricky moves which will be an ongoing issue with bird pages for a while. If you really want to avoid unpleasantness, you could just drop into WP:RFPP every so often - my yardstick is if an article is copping a vandal from a different IP daily then I will semiprotect. You could post a not saying you will fetch deleted data too. It didn't really make a difference to me as the main thing I do is article creation still. All good. I never worried about new admin school :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't bother. No-one seemed to take umbrage. --Dweller (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Cas; long time no speak. Because of work concerns my editing has dropped off considerably. I'm basically just doing FAR (I can't seem to close anything at the moment) and taking care of one troublesome article. A week from today, I should have a bit more time to collaborate. Probably Leopard; I did up a couple of sections on it last year. Marskell (talk) 09:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect I'm barking up the wrong tree, but no time to look into it. Please feel free to bring the proposed move to a swift end. --Dweller (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's no biggie - unless there's a pile-on oppose I am happy to let it stew a bit longer (snigger..I crack myself up sometimes) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't think of anything off the top of my head but I don't really have time to edit a bunch right now anyway... why don't you send it thru and I can always add stuff later on if necessary. Thanks! Sheep81 (talk) 05:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I'll give it a copyedit and send it through. If you check in every couple of days that would be grand :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed you had volunteered to do peer reviews with a special interest in biology, especially plants. I posted Christmas tree cultivation for review as a precursor to and FA bid and was hoping you might have some time to take a look. I have been doing a bit of work on it of late, after letting it sit for a few months. Thanks for anything you can contribute. IvoShandor (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
....interesting. I'll take a look. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments and work thus far. I noticed you live in Australia, any photos you could take of Christmas tree farms in your country would be most helpful. From what I understand christmas trees are a relatively new crop in Australia, I haven't found a whole lot but what I have found in compiled in the Christmas tree production article. (You can see what needs filled in there at a glance). If we find enough information we could write a country article, all of this will help me globalize the main article - which is very much a goal I have been striving toward. Right now I am working on several individual country production articles but the only one I have "finished" is about Canada - see Christmas tree production in Canada. IvoShandor (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry to bother you so much, but I wanted to make sure you were aware of this category: Category:Christmas tree farming. Everything we have on Christmas trees, live, right now, is in that cat. The only one I didn't write is Tree tyer, which I am not even sure is a notable topic. Now, I will silence myself. :) IvoShandor (talk) 13:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please give this thread a quick glance Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Self-harm. If you could phone the authorities it would be appreciated.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 01:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nevermind, Viridae came to the rescue!¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 01:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
Thank you
|
| I would just like to say thank you for your efforts regarding the potential suicide thread on ANI last night. This may have been a poor taste message or hoax, but if it wasn't hopefully...... we may have made a real difference. So thank you and if ever there is anything I can do to help you in the future, please don't hesitate to ask. Khukri 08:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
