User talk:Casliber: Difference between revisions

Archives Archive 1: May 2006 – December 2006 Archive 2: December 2006 – February 2007 Archive 3: February 2007 – March 2007 Archive 4: March 2007 - May 2007 Archive 5: May 2007 - June 2007 Archive 6: June 2007 - July 2007 Archive 7: July 2007 Archive 8: July 2007 - August 2007 Archive 9: August 2007 - September 2007 Archive 10: September 2007 - November 2007 Archive 11: November 2007 Archive 12: December 2007 - January 2008 Archive 13: January 2008 Archive 14: January-February 2008

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]

Your edit about free range hippos stirred my deepest, darkest desire on Wikipedia -- to create the page Pablo Escobar's hippos. Have you ever read about this? A hippo critical situation, LA Times. I'd never create the page... the deletionists would go bonkers! But I can dream, oh yes! PS I think you're right on the white rhinos. Wait until the article takes better shape, but no reason to turn the subspecies into redirects so early in the process. And Asiatic Lion shows that a subspecies article can definitely have merit. I've been a bit distracted lately from the beasties. --JayHenry 16:04, 10 September 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]

I've done ssp of Rock Pigeon, sent Song Thrush to fac. I'll have a look later for the robin refs , but not sure that I've got the ones you need. Jimfbleak (talk) 07:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From Marskell: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-02-25/Dispatches at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-02-25. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you respond to the wrong person? Because I have no idea what you're talking about. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 20:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've now made a draft. Sorry for the delay. I hope you will want to add your name to the list of participants. Geometry guy 21:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see the problem with AmRob, not sure that we can do anything more than you have done. While Song Thrush is at FAC, there are a couple of possibilities for the next. One is Chough, but I've also tarted up Aerodramus a bit. do you think it's a runner? I'd like to get a genus through FA Jimfbleak (talk) 13:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please please please do an RfB Cas. You'd be awesome. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 09:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. And I supported your mushroom. --Laser brain (talk) 05:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 28 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hödekin, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

for the props! Bearian (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it's ready for a GA drive yet? Scarian^{Call me Pat} 20:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I'm gonna spell check it, read it, run it through AWB and then big it up for GA ;-) Got my back, Mr.Mushroom? :-D Scarian^{Call me Pat} 20:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[2] Personally, I am holding out for seeing his name on a certain list in November. Of course, if the other comes to pass first, then I'll reconsider. ;) Risker (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC) ([reply]

Hehe, 1 yr admin anniversary is in late October.....what's in November......aaah, arbcom elections.... (?) [[::User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[::User talk:Casliber|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 04:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh how very bright of you. I see it pays to have started watchlisting the talk pages of a better class of editor - so much more enlightened. Risker (talk) 04:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Careful, you're feeding my natural narcissism..(unless you mean his talk page). :) [[::User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[::User talk:Casliber|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 04:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think I followed you both home from someone else's talk page, but it is all good. Not to get all stalkerish or anything - I just figure it's a good way to be exposed to the more positive aspects of the encyclopedia. You know, the writing and all... Risker (talk) 05:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's funny how you can tell who's looking at whose contributions by edits to certain articles popping up here and there...and following odd threads of conversations etc. [[::User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[::User talk:Casliber|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 05:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Many fervent thanks Cas, for your erudite and positive contribution. I hope the mushrooms haven't suffered. Fainites ^barley 15:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing the vandalism of The Regis School of the Sacred Heart. I don’t know how I missed it since the article is on my watchlist. Cheers! —Travis^talk 17:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now when exactly is the heliacal rising of Sirius this year? Should be today's FA on that date....[[::User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[::User talk:Casliber|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 07:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Mid-July.—RJH (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The March 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, see you had a good crack at A. muscaria and it's looking good, both seem close, think I'll have a go at Gyromitra esculenta today. See you there? Cheers Mr Bungle | talk 23:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The rearrange looks much better, that section was getting a bit crowded. I sort of left the variation/preparation bits alone (might come back to the article again in the future and see if I can add a few refs).

p.s. I noticed your friend SineBot isn't following you around anymore :) Cheers Mr Bungle | talk 07:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'll look at the links you posted to me. I thought you might be interested in these threads where I've explained a concern of mine that is part of why I believe some things should be deleted. The talk is fairly spread about and you'll have to read some of the stuff linked to for it to hold together.

• User talk:Masem#a namespace concern
• User talk:Sgeureka#One For the Money

Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I get the idea. Yes that is a valid point. Were it me, I would ensure on correct naming of low profile articles (say, a TV episode) with a parenthetic epithet so as not to muck up or occupy possible important article or disambiguations. [[::User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[::User talk:Casliber|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 09:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

PS: This would be the most valid reason for merging I have seen thus far and I am surprised more prominence was not made of it earlier though I must admit I can't keep up with the sheer volume of dialogue - life's too short....[[::User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[::User talk:Casliber|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 09:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a problem project wide and is a fundamental interaction between anyone can edit and discussion is encourage. It is, of course, also due to the "anyones" not having anything like a project wide view of things; they care about Buffy or whatever niche they are obsessed with. See here for a D&D example. This is one thing when the subject is notable (rather is kept around) but is gets quite messy when, for whatever reason, things go. Care to take-on the clean-up of old article under One For the Money? Needs that admin bit to split the histories. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered if you might respond to my plaintive cry? --Dweller (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you glorious angel, you. --Dweller (talk) 23:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Reviewers Award
		Many thanks for all your help. Hope I can do the same for a Mushroom one day. Fainites barley 19:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the barnstar. Thanks again, Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 12:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) That was a wonderful way to start my day! Karanacs (talk) 14:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Casliber. The star is a perfect complement to my earl grey and muffin remnants. --Laser brain (talk) 14:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a file of notes on the folklore of fairy rings. My computer's been acting up and will be sent to the doctor tomorrow, but I should be able to start editing the fairy ring article in the next week, two weeks tops. I've found tons of stuff on Celtic superstitions and folklore, and a bit on other regions. Hopefully with a bit more searching we can fill in some of the superstitions from other parts of the world. It's a fascinating subject! — Dulcem (talk) 13:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your c-e, as well as thoughtful contrib at FAC. --Dweller (talk) 20:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, I have answered your responses, so thankyou. You don't often get a GA review soon after nomination.

Heres the link for your quick use: Talk:Cumberland (rugby league team)  The Windler talk  06:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your FAC comments recommending the addition of more info about the "Canyonero" and discussion of it in secondary news sources, I have searched multiple news archives and databases and added some more information with new citations to the Cultural references section. Unfortunately after searching through these various databases I was unable to find any secondary sources that mentioned which specific Ford commercial was being parodied - so it is possible that this comment made in the DVD commentary for the episode really does just mean that Ford commercials in general from that time period were being parodied, and not a specific commercial. I hope I have done enough to respond to your FAC comments, and perhaps to change your sentiment at the FAC page? If not, please let me know. Thanks for your time, Cirt (talk) 10:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Cas, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats.
I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight.
I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community.
I was a little miserable after the results came out, so I'm going to spread the love via dancing hippos. As you do. :)
I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to call me out. ~ Riana ⁂ 11:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Your comments made me laugh. It's all a bit blokey, isn't it? I'll try next time. ;) ~ Riana ⁂ 11:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I reverted this edit yesterday on Yamaguchia toyensis. It would seem that the above redlink needs creating.
Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
for the Work Assignments Committee

Holy oligochaetes batman! Best get onto it! [[::User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[::User talk:Casliber|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 12:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

which leads me to Oligochaeta (plant); so much natural cruft that needs creating. Cheers, Jack Merridew

Gotta love natural cruft, there are 30 000 species of daisy in the world, which is alot but dwarfed by the 300 000 species of beetle. I made some stubs which are now on my watchlist, but I am knackered and need to sleep now...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Consider the view that the human footprint on this planet, which includes cutting all the trees that go into all those D&D magazines and sourcebooks, is what's destroying the habitat of those daisies and beetles, not to mention the worms.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly. However, he is free to contribute on the talk pages or to comment on any AfD, RfD, DRV, or similar discussion initiated by another editor, as appropriate. Enforcement of this remedy is specified here.

Furthermore, the parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question, and are warned that the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute. Please also note that the temporary injunction enacted by the Committee on February 3 in relation to this case now ceases to be in effect.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Blnguyen/WMA Petition. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 07:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago. Oh, and when you're ready do an FA (any FA) I'd be honoured to assist you in any way I can. --Dweller (talk) 09:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for chiming in at WT:RFA with such a typically level-headed contribution. --Dweller (talk) 10:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Har har, all this talk an' I'll get a big 'ead n'all next...[[::User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[::User talk:Casliber|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 10:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cas, just wanted to say thanks for your support and kind words at my recent RfB which passed successfully with (133/4/3). Hope that I can live up to your expectations! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look on here, you'll see my "working" list, of Arabians (and a whole bunch else) that I think should be done. User:Ealdgyth I pulled them from Carpenter's Arabian Legends book. Ealdgyth | Talk 04:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Friends of ours left Texas to go work for Simeon Stud down in Oz land. I had a grandson of Ibn Halima at one point, but sold him a while back. Right now, I'm not buying ANY more stallions, sticking to mares. Love the Halima's though, sweet horses. Ealdgyth | Talk 04:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked (first look) and noticed that it was invoking {{Contains Indic text}} which had an issue which I've just fixed. I try and take a meta-view; this fix cleans-up an issue in several hundred articles. There's table near me at the moment, made of a single piece of teak; it's a about a meter wide, more than 2 long, and 15cm thick. It's going fast. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hyblaea puera‎ needs a {{Taxobox}} — I took a stab at it but it wasn't going well. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lovisa von Burghausen — latest collaboration. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I've unblocked Kingoftonga86 after he requested unblocking, claiming it was his roommate. As you blocked him with the reason "vandal only account" I checked the contribs (dating back to 2005) and all except the ones in February are fine. I've got him on my watchlist just in case, Poeloq (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine to me. I am glad I was wrong and am happy to assume good faith now (dunno why that didn't come up on my watchlist...) :) [[::User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[::User talk:Casliber|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 22:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think someone forgot to tell you, but your sig's being discussed at WP:BN. So now you know! :-) --Dweller (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a follow-up to this, the problem is that your sig as two colons at the front of each link. This isn't needed, and I think you're subst:ing {{user}} to get this effect. Here's what you should change your sig to:

[[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]])

And here's what it outputs, so you can verify it doesn't look different: (the talk page link is only bold because that's where we're at)

Casliber (talk · contribs)

Let me know if you have any questions. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, signature changed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 13 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Boletus barrowsii, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

On the DYK on the Main page, it says something about being a favorite food for maggots. Yet when I read the article, it said nothing about it. Am I confused? I hate mushrooms, so it may be that I'm really confused!!! I've seen your edits on lots of articles, didn't know you were a mushroom guy too. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The last line of the description section. I just found a really cool free-use photo (how cool is it, like a cake on a stalk...). Always like fungi, dunno why. Only 5% of Australian species are formally described. If you hate normal mushroom, dried porcini (Boletus edulis) are bit different, you reconsitute them and they make pasta really nice. Also, Oyster mushrooms are less like normal mushrooms - these you can get in boutique or chinese or italian markets etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My anti-fungal stance comes from the fact that toenail fungus and edible mushrooms are the same thing!!!! LOL. Seriously, I just can't get my palate around mushrooms. I went to this business meeting once, and what I thought was roast beef was in fact a big giant gross mushroom of some sort. I have only now recovered psychologically. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try this on aesthetically, I have a crop of Agaricus xanthodermus in my garden - they smell to me like a cross between shampoo and asphalt, stronger when we get one of the 4-5 crops of mushrooms a year but you can still sense it at other times. Judging from digging around it is about a 3-4 metre diameter circular area. My other half really hates the smell...but how do you get rid of it? Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fungicide!!!!!!!! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh great, one bare earth policy coming up....Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest. In like 10 years of college, medical school and graduate school, I took 0, that would zero, mycology courses. In fact, as part of my graduate degree research, I had to culture fetal hepatocytes (oops, don't let the anti-abortion nutjobs know that). I couldn't use gentamycin in my cell culture media as it might have an effect on the biochemistry of the cell. About 1 week before I was to lyse the cells and fractionate the proteins, all of my cultures got attacked by some fungus. It was war from that day on. Portabellos are my are on my list for eradication. DOWN WITH MUSHROOMS. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Threw refs and infoboxes and pedigrees at them. That look like enough to keep them for a bit? Ealdgyth | Talk 22:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant. Just what the doctor ordered. Thanks very much. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're on your own there, I don't own stuff on resonably recent Arabians in Europe. Well, I have a Russian Arabian stud book, but it's in Russian, so it's not much help.... Ealdgyth | Talk 01:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your support in my RfA, which was successful with a final count of 70/1/1! ... discospinster _talk 23:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Grevillea 'Peaches and Cream', which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Now this is a plant I can love. DOWN WITH MUSHROOMS. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Cas, Maybe we could have a wildlife, plant, or fungus TFA on Earth Day, April 22. Lion, perhaps? Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 04:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's a good idea. We can tell Raul to take his pick really....on the long-term requests pageCasliber (talk · contribs) 04:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Do you want to do the honours? You know the FA backlog better than I do. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 05:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll post something in a sec...Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A user is making some rather suspicious changed to the Oasis article. Here is one example: [3] (Just scroll down and you'll see what I mean). What do you think? Are they warranted? Scarian^{Call me Pat} 10:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen him before, he does a lot of work on music pages, but tends to do things his way and walk the line with WP:OWN. He made this comment [4] on the Iron Maiden page a while back. I think he's well-meaning, but I'm not certain all the changes he makes are uniform. Redrocket (talk) 10:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, as you can tell I've run into him before. I just think removing a source and paragraph right after GA is just a bit too... um... illogical. If it passed with it, then what's the harm in keeping it? Scarian^{Call me Pat} 10:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the rationale behind changing years to 1997, as it was still the after-effects of britpop time. I'm not sure about removing the edits though. The article is only 40kb. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]