User talk:Casliber: Difference between revisions

2069:

The problem in previous edits is the confusion with Alpha Centauri the star and Alpha Centauri as a system. There was much about alpha centauri, especially its brightness compared to Arcturus as well as the relationship with Proxima Centauri. (See the Discussion with the associated page to this article.) It was thought best to avoid complexity by giving the basic information, and add complexity in sections so information could be understood at various levels of knowledge. Also as there is much interest in Alpha Centauri from children to amateur astronomers, it was best to give the introduction as brief as possible and explain the complexities as we go. As to modifications of articles as drastically as you have done to complex article, it might be better to do so with some discussion in the discussion section before doing so. Although I note that you have much experience in doing wiki edits, much better than me, it is better to make small changes in complex articles paragraph by paragraph than carte blanche changes. (I am very happy to discuss any issues on the article with you in the alpha centauri discussion to improve the article.)

9461:...yee..eah, Trifids was one of those bands that had alot of 'cred' i.e. at uni they commanded a deal of respect and praise from People With Taste - I didn't mind them but was not crazy 'bout them........I was just musing on digging up some fun tunes while driving around. Now I am sitting in front of the keyboard I can't remember which ones I was thinking that I hadn't posted before. gimme some time an' I'll come up with some fun stuff - I did tell you my Ireland moment didn't I, we drove SW from Enniskillen into the south on a nice sunny spring day and as on cue when crossing the boarde the radio plays 'Linger' by the cranberries. I recall thinking, "Corny I know, but still rather nice on a nother level, esp. with volume up." 2856: 1445:. vii. 23). But also in these cases the doubt is not justified. For pork contains more moisture than necessary , 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. 6762:. If you will be at the next play-off game at Knowsely Road or if you are able to get any pictures of these grounds I would be very gratefull if you could upload them to commons. I can sort out the categories and such if you don't have any time. Alternatively if you know of anyone who could it would be much appreciated. I am unlikely to go to any away games next season because of my current circumstances so will not be able to contribute towards this, although I shall endevour to get some great images at home games (I've a load of the CC final to upload but there sat it a very long backlog). 2295: 2303: 2863: 7920:— We have been making solid progress in eliminating the 2008 articles from the backlog so far. If we continue to focus our firepower we can completely wipe out 2008 from the queue. Overall volumes are lower than expected though, with nearly a thousand articles yet to be done if we are to meet our overall target. If you have not yet participated in the drive, we recommend you do so. If each person who signed up edits one article per day from now till the end of the month we can eliminate another 1,065 articles from the backlog. All contributions are appreciated. 9706: 4514:

required? Can I post questions on their talk page and elicit their support? Is that not presumptuous? And who has time for this stuff anyway? Is there a "white flag" that Wikipedians can raise on their talk page that says "Hey, I'm busy this month, don't bug me"? ...etc. It's often been said that if everybody is responsible, nobody is responsible. This is often the downside of "big teams", and so that's why I'm seeing perhaps a different module to get neophytes like me fully plugged in, making useful rather than superfluous contributions.

5030:, you'll see where I got my information. Now here is where the copyright concern comes in. Scroll down all the way to the very bottom. See the black line? It says "Copyright 2000 - 2010 © European Space Agency. All rights reserved." So I don't know what that means in terms of this Knowledge article. If I tell the reader in the body of the article that this information came from their website, then provide a reference, and then a link right to the information, is Knowledge covered insofar as copyright concerns? 1972: 2073:

colonization of imagined planetary systems. These themes are common to many video games and works of science fiction." has little to do with the basic facts on alpha centauri. I.e. Nearest star, third brightest star, binary star, etc. As for "Kinematics" as a title, this is irrelevant (Sirius article also has it wrong). (Also see Discussion page for Alpha Centauri with SpacePotato) Note: I have contributed much to this page - 713 edits according to the statistics. (27th April 2008 to today)

9623: 4567:'declining' ratings is actually wholesale upscaling of the classes as wikipedia adopted inline referencing a couple of years ago. You can look in the history and compare an old version of those articles and see. Although pages list alot of editors, often only a handful are active. Luckily for me there have been a few folks interested in what I write about. Right now I generally concentrate editing on getting results - that is, editing to get to a stable point. My suggestions are (a) list 3930: 11238:, against binge drinking, but I do not know how to resolve that as I and other editors could not find any sources which discussed recreational use of alcohol in favourable terms, certainly no medical sources. Some content may be a bit too technical and could perhaps be moved to other articles but would appreciate some outside eyes to review it before deciding what if any content needs deleted or moved to more focused articles. If you are too busy, not to worry. Thanks. :)-- 1843: 6860: 2132: 10787: 9845: 9736: 7904: 10115: 10048: 9374: 9223: 8723: 8643: 8563: 8483: 7807: 7727: 7647: 7567: 10912:, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive will begin on 1 November at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on 30 November at 23:59 (UTC). The goal for this drive is to reduce the backlog by 10% (approximately 500 articles). We hope to focus our efforts on the oldest three months (January, February, and March 2009) and the newest three months (September, October, and November 2010) of articles in the queue. 9721: 8219:

sure if I'll be doing things right. Of course, I'll read all the directions, but I'd just like to see if there are any customs/procedures there. I've noticed there there is a considerable list of articles waiting to be reviewed, so I'd like to help in cutting down that list. I've had experience in more administrative-like tasks, but nothing close to GA. So, should I jump right in and start reviewing or is there some "training" thing? Thanks.

4005:(Sommerville & May, 2006). Commonly known as banksia discs, they have all been found on eastern Australian Banksias and one is also known in Western Australia. They are discomycete fungi, growing on the fruit and appearing as small, shallow dark cups on the follicles (Fuhrer, 2005). When dry they fold inwards and look like narrow slits. Their effect is unkown but it seems unlikely that they are responsible for degradation of the seeds." 2151:

Similarly, you could argue for two pattern lines (dextral and sinistral spiral) or four (dextral, sinistral, vertical and horizontal), but there is no way you could argue for 3, because there is no reason to include vertical whilst excluding horizontal). On top of that there is a beautiful symmetry in the way each common bract is surrounded by its own floral bracts and those of its neighbours. But George's diagrams destroy that symmetry.

291: 282: 9804: 7469: 71: 7228:"There are other sources not available on the web, but I am not a Cheers! fan." — So you're gonna palm it off to someone else, and then we go right the hell around in circles back to where we started, and two years later it's still unsourced and people are questioning its notability. This kind of crap happens all the time. "There must be sources somewhere" is not a reason to keep. Burden of proof's on YOU, bub. 8281:

are, so props to you for all you did to help get it to FA (I doubt this could have been done without you..) Real life for me is undergoing some major (positive) developments so I will be away from wikipedia for some time. But I intend to return one day next year with the clear goal of boosting more NZ bird articles from start/B class to FA.. Great to see Australian Magpie on the mainpage today btw :) Cheers,

3508:), or, alternatively, maybe enough for a GA on the genus. What are the chances of images? Apparently these fungi make small but visible apothecia on the seed capsules. Berkeley and Broome first wrote about the fungus in 1887, so maybe there's a sketch from the protologue that's useable. Anyway, I'll start adding text in a day or two and maybe we can have the first Banksia/Fungi wikiproject collaboration? 7896: 6374: 5236:

will simply discuss additional variability issues like periodicity. It's always a judgement call as to what constitutes "too much information". We'll see. What makes Betelgeuse so challenging is there is a lot of conflicting information out there — just like all the conflicting information I saw regarding distance. My intent is to at least cover the different findings and put them into perspective.

6930: 3493: 1036:) 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. 4534:. Great idea! I might in fact join. What's missing for me here is focus and results — a section which basically reads: After 3 years, this is our conclusion. Follow this format: A, B, C, D... But I don't see that. Hmmm! Maybe Knowledge works because it's so open-ended. People just do what they do when they do it. So once again, the underlying inquiry for me is simply "What works?". 4538:

with few or no references. It's a bit of a "grunt job" frankly, but if you're working on a team, there's a sense of accomplishment, and clearly it raises the overall quality of the encyclopedia. Maybe there's an astrophysicist in the group that can guide the effort and from there, we hand the ball off to another team. I don't know. Does any of this make sense? Would it even work?

5695:. Given that this section was the focus of early contributions, I have intentionally avoided editing "other people's work", focusing as you know on adding new sections. But as I point out, the job needs to be done for various reasons and I thought it would be useful to put everyone on notice and invite comments. The last thing I want to do is create an edit war. Any thoughts?-- 9033:? I was thinking most visitor numbers in Australia claim but was not sure a CEO of a tourist organisation was a reliable source. I phoned him and he said it was sourced from the Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management website although it is not returning anything with Google to confirm this. The other hook was most traversed trail in Australia sourced to a 7432: 7205:. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are 2398:

so tightly that their dense coverings of hairs form the fibrous brown material that comprises a typical flower spike, and the common bracts at their apex will form the bract pattern on the surface of the spike. At that point, they will no longer be distinguishable as individual peduncles, but will simply be part of the spike.

7482: 309: 9298:, one of the finest of all the Australian wildflowers. My area of interest is the rainforest trees of the Illawarra. They say to be interested in wildflowers you need to have one foot in the grave, and not to have had sex in 20 years. But, the heathland wild flowers are worth seeing now, if you get the chance. regards, 8238:

biographies, biological articles and geography have within each of them a set of things you'd hope to read about. If complicated and you can't follow becaise of too-technical language or jargon, then ask if it can be explained more clearly without losing meaning. Why not choose one or two and then ping me.

10893: 9965: 5235:

for the latest. I actually included 4 out of the 6 paragraphs that I'm contemplating. The extra 2 paragraphs I will add in the next week or so as I gather more information. This first import holds together pretty well by itself, I think, and may not need the extra paragraphs. The extra information

5178:

The scope of this project has turned out to be far more than I ever imagined. There is so much information to absorb — kind of like putting together a giant jig-saw puzzle with 10,000 pieces. What I'm finding is you can't just work on one section at a time, as every piece is interconnected, and you

4384:

page could be created to help new contributors get oriented. Also I notice that the word "collaboration" itself, in Knowledge, is virtually synonymous with "immensity" and "overwhelm" — given that its focus is a global community. Turning the word upside down and looking at it from the standpoint of

2401:

When the flowers start to develop, they get squeezed together even more. At this point, sometimes, a peduncle may break off the axis and be squeezed right out of the spike as the flowers around it develop. Thus you may see one or two of these furry things sitting at random positions on the surface of

2397:

In very young spikes like the one pictured here, they are not yet very densely packed together, so they can be perceived as individual peduncles. Given time, they will continue to grow, and as they do so they will become more and more densely packed together, until eventually they are jammed together

2173:(I'm not just being a pretentious wanker here. I thought the diagram was interesting and informative enough for me to whip up an SVG version for Knowledge. But since copying George's diagram isn't really on, and it is much better to go straight from nature if possible, I was basing my version on this 2142:

flower spike. Both diagrams clearly show a hexagonal layout; i.e. every common bract is surrounded by six equidistant common bracts, thus forming little hexagons. In support of this, George (1981) states "The unit inflorescences are so arranged on the axis that there are three pattern lines—vertical,

1449:

So, Maimonides argues "pork contains more moisture than necessary , and too much of superfluous matter", whatever that means! More importantly, the "principal reason" is that if you keep pigs, you end up with a dirty and unhealthy environment. Important note: Maimonides was writing from Islamic Egypt

10181:

might make a future DYK, as people seem to love the sight of these quirky orchids. I don't have enough info to make a full article on it. But I thought of this for a DYK hook, "did you know that the flying duck orchid is an orchid that looks like a flying duck"! Hmmm, that's far too flippant for all

8803:

to be done to banned editor's actions, is the point. If the substance of the edits are good, another editor (uninvolved with the banned editor, of course) can always add them. It's a dangerous game sometimes, though, as the focus is shifting at the AN/I as I type this. Just wanted to clarify that

8218:

and the review process for such articles. I was wondering, should I just jump in and start reviewing articles to see if they meet criteria? Should I contact someone and get more information before I do so? The reason I ask is that this will be my first time contributing to the GA process, so I'm not

5625:

article in earnest. There's only a few minor edits needed after which I'll finally submit the article for GA review. The only missing element is a discussion of stellar mass. When mass was originally addressed back in July, I simply referenced Jim Kaler, though now I recognize the conversation to

4782:

I'm pretty psyched to work with you on this. So I already decided to do some cleanup. The Starbox really needed some work. So that's now all up to date with refs included. Also I created a personal sandbox and imported the latest version to completely redesign the article's structure. There is

4566:

Okay I understand. I started off similar, by just editing and watching articles grow, then read somewhere about not contributing if you mind your contributions getting edited mercilessly by someone else. This got me wondering how to go from there a bit like you describe above. One of the reasons for

1481:

I see you've taken it on, good work. The display and vision bits at Crested Tern apply for all the genus. The opening sentence isn't fully supported by Bridge - although Elegant is very close, Lesser Crested isn't, other than being in the same genus. I won't abandon this article (after all, one good

1376:

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

1282:

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)

516:

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,

9892:

If you copy edited at least 4,000 words, you qualify for a barnstar. If you edited in the July 2010 GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive, you may have earned rollover words, which counted towards this month's barnstars (except for the leaderboard awards). Any unused word credits will be held over for the

8839:

You mean between the good biological content removed and the reverting of the edits because it was from a banned user? This brings up a very interesting issue, indeed. I would think that if the consensus was that certain edits removed had truly been improving the encyclopedia (of course: properly

8798:

Hey, Casliber! Don't get me wrong on the deletion of good edits; I've dug up socks of a banned user or two, and I didn't go through each and every edit of those socks and delete every single one. I thought about it for a minute, but many were good edits - why would anyone revert corrected typos?

8376:

Yes, congratulations. I read an article in a bike magazine from these parts a few months ago mentioning the article, in fact. The author added cable ties to his bike helmet as an alternative to a mohawk, after reading the bit about how it deters the birds, of course sarcastically saying that it was

5575:

article, as you probably guessed. I noticed your contributions, and in fact, provided some xrefs, which I believe are accurate. I hope to have all the GA improvements done by Saturday. If you have a chance to give it a quick lookover in a few days, that would be great. This weekend, I'll try to

5136:

Hi Calisber. I've got a new section for you to look at. To be honest it's not quite finished. But given my commitment to have something ready within a day or two, I've produced a "condensed" version for prime time. There are two more additional paragraphs that I am still working on. I will try

4490:

Given my training, I tend to take a "bottom-up" versus "top-down" approach. So when I think of "collaboration", I think of 2-5 people max teaming up to achieve a specific objective. In this respect I could see dozens of small teams like this working on different goals. Whether that would work or

4486:

Oddly, I'm no astrophysicist either. So I don't know if I qualify to manage a group on this topic. My background the last 30 years has been banking and finance — specifically launching new ventures. I just wanted to learn something about astronomy, starting reading articles, got hooked, and very

2068:

I have unfortunately had to revert much of the changes you have made to the Alpha Centauri page - mainly to the structure revisions that you have done. While I agree it is best to standardise between bright star pages (i.e. Sirius), there is significant problems doing so to the Alpha Centauri page.

1295:

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

8280:

Thanks Cas! It was one of my recent goals to get Huia to FA so to help have done it feels great and that's really nice of you to give me a barnstar, it's my first and the bio barnstar version looks so cool too, heh - it was a team effort of course, as most wikipedia articles getting promoted to FA

5198:

Interesting - so the version you want to import is the condensed one above the olive text? Looks good - I find it easier to work with when I see it in the article, so bring it in. I think the olive bit is worth bringing in sooner rather than later and working from there. The prose can probably be

4537:

In conclusion, if I were to be the catalyst for a new collaboration, it would be something like this. Let's take one constellation per month and get the 10 most important stars and other deep sky objects in that constellation up to C class or better. There's a lot of Stub-Class articles out there

3689:

Am working on the article behind-the-scenes now... that picture you uploaded is excellent, and thanks Hesp for finding the protologue. Too bad the scan resolution is so crappy; I can upload a screen capture/crop to Commons, but will first investigate to see if there's a copy of the original around

1371:

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

7251:

his self-righteous username makes me fishy and I doubt Petaholmes would have deliberately misrepresented things. I foudn the refs to the toehr bits I didn't track down last year. Not up to speed with this technical stuff... should stick to copyting easy things from books "It is 2 m long.... It is

590:

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

5063:

It was at that point that I really saw an opportunity to do a great job and explain why all the information on Betelgeuse is so conflicted. The essence is that we still haven't quite figured out how far Betelgeuse is. So this section from ESA is a perfect conclusion to the section. The Enigma

4513:

section and I found it intimidating. There are 117 names on that list. As a manager, the first thing that pops into my head is "OK, so what? Who's in charge? Who's assigning what to whom? Who's taken on what assignments? What is expected of members? Is there a minimum level of contribution

4506:. But here's the rub. I don't know if either of these contributions have any merit. So this is where the concept of "collaboration" comes into play for me. I would be good if I could simply "hand the ball off" to someone else and say "I've taken it as far as I can take it, what do you think? 2150:

cone. Look at that pattern. There's no way you could call it hexagonal. It is a rectangular (or rather diamond, since the lines are diagonal) grid. Depending on how you define a neighbourhood, you could argue that each common bract has 4 or 8 neighbours, but there's no way you could argue for 6.

2072:

As to the introduction, much of the additions you have made are actually speculative, and are not necessary on fact. I.e. "This makes it a logical choice as "first port of call" in speculative fiction about interstellar travel, which assumes eventual human exploration, and even the discovery and

4897:

and will focus on just that for the next 48 hours with the idea of transporting a coherent block of text back Betelgeuse in the next few days. Right now I'm doing a lot of reading. There's a lot of information on this star. So I'd like to give myself a couple of days to pull all the elements

2378:

If you snap a spike axis in half, they are just that brown colour, and essentially made of closely packed fuzz. I wonder if there is initially no gap in the axis for the flower to grow, so the developing flower literally has to shove some of the axis out in front of it as it extends. This would

9324:. This is an excellent article on a very interesting bird. I look forward to seeing this beautiful creature again in a couple of months when I return to Australia. I can see you have a million things going on at this time, but I would really appreciate your comments at the peer review for the 8237:

and think to yourself, "is there anything missing here? Anything I wanna know which I can't see written about?" There is no mad rush to wrap them up pronto, so opening up a review and noting some issues is a great start. Some things will be simple as they follow a standard format - hence many

4669:

what I see are 19,238 stub articles and 3,040 start articles, the sum of which comes to roughly 97% of all the Astronomy articles written. I'm vaguely aware of the fact that Knowledge is very interested in editors creating more quality content. What's the strategy to achieve that objective?

5073:

In any event, I'm glad you liked it. I'm pretty happy with it myself, although it would be great if we can get an astronomer like RJHall to make sure everything works. As I see it, I'm a pretty good "guinea pig" for this sort of thing, as I try to understand the subject form the layman's

247:

Hey Cas, I've sent the same message to Firsfron but he seems to be out. Could you delete my old account at ] or tell me how to do it? I was contemplating coming back but then a few things went wrong so am off again...(no, I am not pissed, just amused). Cheers. ] (]) 20:54, 28 October 2010

239:

10652:

Thank you very much for your peer review comments so far! ;) I have responded to all of them, and for the last point you raised, I moved some stuff in the article around so far, just wanted clarification on whether your recommendation should subsequently exist as a final paragraph in the

4525:

to see that it was originally flagged in 2008 for improvement from C to FA class. Result? It's still C-Class. That's scary! Maybe there are very few out there that actually want to collaborate. Or maybe it was a failure in how the project was originally designed. Is there by chance a

4810:

Looks cool. I have the Richard Hinkley Allen book and the Kuntzisch book to get the etymology right - I also have a longer oxford dictionary (with magnifying glass). Will pull out books and go from there in the next 24-48 hours. Feel free to tweak and/or add any bits of text you can.

4482:

Thanks for the quick reply. Given your suggestion, I'm willing to step "to the plate" and start a collaboration page... if that's the most effective approach. To me it's a question of what works and what doesn't work. And given that I'm new here, your insights would be very useful.

10306:

G'day Peter - sadly I can't come this time :( - I'd not worry about travelling with someone like that - sounds like someone one can learn from, IQs are pretty abstract concepts in some ways anyway. My October is looking dreary with several compulsory chores coming up to keep me too

8258:

Thanks, I'll get started as soon as I can. I was just not sure if it'll look weird if I just start reviewing there when I've done nothing there before. Kinda like helping new users when someone is new themselves I guess. Anyway, thanks for the information and I'll start when I can.

4783:

not one single word changed in the article itself — just moved a few blocks of text, added headings and sub-headings, and repositioned some pics. I think it works better. If you have a chance, take a look at the redesign and let me know if you think it works. You can find it at

5064:

section starts with the distance estimate of 56 parsecs in 1920, does a fair job of explaining what has happened in the interim and then concludes with "What's next". So that's why I definitely want the ESA information in there. It pulls all the pieces together for the reader.

2223:: I had a look at the pages in question in the banksia book(s), there is a little bit more in the 1981 monograph but not much. I meant to ring Alex George about this and should do so in the next few days...I guess the photos look sort of like hexagons stretched vertically :P 1296:

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. :(

4276: 4369:, but that too was pretty overwhelming. Anyway, as you scroll down, you finally get to a section on collaborations, but that too takes you in a million directions. Finally if you simply enter "collaboration" into the search box in Knowledge, you are directed here: 2412:"Furry things" may occasionally be found partly out of the spike, but partly in, in which cases the white tip is quite obviously the common bract. In such cases removal of the "furry thing" leaves behind a visible hole in the spike where a common bract ought to be. 268::Um. I am only an admin not a bureaucrat. Do you want me to delete the user page and talk page? I can do that, but I can't delete the user contribution history as such. I don't understand teh need for a new account...? ] (] '''·''' ]) 00:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC) 4973:

Looks great - I was just thinking something along these lines about how to find it and our theories on how far it is have evolved over the years. Stick it in and we can continue copyeidting from there. I am not sure which bit is copyrighted - can you highlight?

9817: 156: 4843:

Great! I'll update a few things, copy it over and post a short note on the talk page. I'm not sure about the sub-headings for Observational History, but that section was so big, it needed some structure to it. We can modify the sub-headings as we go along.

4562:. It encompasses collaboration, but has more to do with how you can most effectively contribute, collaboration being but a subset. Are you interested in helping me draft that page to submit for approval later on? I'm already getting ideas as to its design. 4433:

as good things to aim for, as they represent 'stable points' that one can refer back to once/if articles degrade or change. Anyway, I will think of how we can tweak the above. If yuo want to start an astronomy collaboration I am happy to help (collaborate) :)

9293:

Howdy, you did another superb job with Myoporum acuminatum. Congratulations. By the way, the wildflowers now are some of the best I've ever seen, this is a good season. There's so many articles to be written. I can't believe that there was no Wiki article on

5105:

Yes. I too love actually spelling out who says what and why rather than just presenting facts as facts. There are similar issues in taxonomy, botany etc. and very often the answer is just not so clear cut. I will look at the copyrighted material in a minute.

5039:

I thought about simply paraphrasing the essence of the ESA information, that way avoiding any copyright infringement. But frankly, it was so well written and informative that I thought it would be a more honorable gesture to copy it verbatim and provide the

6055:

nearly ready to go but the first I need to access a document I can only get hard copy via interlibrary loan, and the second I am trying to contact folks who've photographed it, so both are out of my hands for the time being. Am collaborating with a new user

6749:

and we have very few free-to-use images of them (although the ones we have, particularly of Wheldon Road are very good). I wouldn't like to see our material on these historic grounds go the same way as the very limited material we have for the historic

2393:

I have today taken a long lunch and gone bushwalking with Gnangarra. While he took happy-snaps, I did some OR on this question. My diagnosis is: these are peduncles that have developed common bracts, but have not yet developed floral bracts or flowers.

10726: 2189:

Thanks for reminding me on this one - I think it was Alex (or Kevin??) who told me that every bract pattern was unique to a species and hence diagnostic, but as far as I know not much if anything has been published on this area. The similarity between

965:

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

632:

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?

63: 5317:

I finally got most of those "chucks" cleaned up over the weekend and, pursuant to your suggestions imported them into the main article. Also, I've posted some observations related thereto for your insight and comment. When you have a moment, click

1924:

I have da book with a section on this; I don't have it with me at the moment. Thanks for the tweaks. I tweaked some of the images on Common. People should learn to hold their cameras level. The Pura Besakih particle really should be of the scale of

1201:. 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). 5012:

and you'll see it there in bold as well. What follows is almost verbatim (with a few tweeks), then as you'll notice there's the ref #36 which, if you click on it, takes you to the Reference section where you can click on the web-link called

9894: 9861:. Thanks to all who participated! Several of our top editors were called away to real life concerns during the month (be careful out there, people!). This meant that once again, we did not meet all our lofty targets, but we did come close. 8983:. During my cleanup, I have removed several inactive and retired users. In order to provide interested adoptees with an easy location to find adopters, it is essential that the page be up-to-date with the latest information possible. Thus: 7926:— Participants editing a 10k word article may claim credit for two 5k+ articles on the leaderboard. Those that edit a 15k word article may claim credit for three. Regardless, the article is still counted as a single article in the tallies. 5640:

I have been pretty busy IRL lately. I am more than happy to let you take the dirver's seat WRT mass as you have a handle on all the mass calculations - will try to follow with copyediting ideas and/or observations and boring format fixes.

2791:

But that does not affect the new paper much, since they remain refreshingly noncommitted on the things they cannot reliably assess from their data. And data they have a lot. Also always nice to see geography mapped on phylogenetic trees.

6629:

I can't find an ISBN for it anywhere although the 1st edition was 1973 only the ASIN: B000RT1H5G. Citation Bot reports: * Folklore, Myth and Legends of Ancient Britain - Already has an ISBN. So I don't know what to do about that one.—

2874:

with persistent florets. Not just a bit late to fall: there were old cones from previous seasons with the florets still bolted on. In fact, there wasn't a single bald cone on the whole tree. I've never seen anything like it. Have you?

9483:

ah yeah, linger is a great song by any standards, even if it could be seen as corny in retrospective. I'm not sure how cool triffids were in the late 80s and I dont really care, but likely they were not as cool as this bunch of irish

2779:

is not finalized, but the preprint is ready and formatted. It may well be one of the most comprehensive and beautiful papers on the topic of Psittaciformes evolution. Only gripe: it still does not consider the fossil record fully. Is

4742:

articles. So I decided to invest the time to fully research it. If you have a moment, I’d be interested in your reaction to the ideas put forth. And let me know when you’re ready to start with Betelgeuse. I’m ready when you are.

5182:

I'm enjoying the challenge of it. I believe the goal of completing the different sub-sections by mid-August is still achievable. Let me know if you think the condensed version is ready to be transported over to the main article.

10920: 10860:, nearby to the main island of Puerto Rico. Conservation efforts commenced in 1968 to save the bird from extinction. In 2006, the total estimated population was 34 to 40 individuals in the wild and 143 individuals in captivity. ( 8840:

sourced, not original research, etc.) that they should be restored by an impartial and neutral editor. Someone with no provable link to the banned editor, where it could be a proxy issue. Are these the issues you're juggling?

8452:

with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage.

5762:

I noticed you were able to make a few corrections pursuant to the GA Review. The review was clearly quite favorable. I made a few other changes and responded. Let me know if you see anything missing. You can see my comments

3564: 2869:

While I was out a-walking in the bush one day last week, I spied a banksia with an unfamiliar jizz. Even on closer inspection I was bamboozled for half a minute until the pieces fell together and I realised I was looking at a

4878:

Sounds great! I'm going to call it a night. Tomorrow, I'll look at expanding the Visibility section. I just cut and pasted the last two paragraphs from the former "Characteristics" section. It needs to be massaged a bit.

3728:(2):73-75? I think once those two are located and added, that'll be it from journals (but you may find stuff to add from your Banksia books?). I could start stubs for the species, but it would be a shame to have to leave out 4664:

reducing the overall quality of Knowledge? If I understand you correctly, it looks like my idea for a "collaboration" would have headed in this direction, and would have therefore been counterproductive. When I look at the

3413:, which has three Greek words with diacritics. I'm reasonably certain about two of them, but the middle one has that ~/^ problem that I seem to remember asking you about a long time ago. Could have have a quick look for me? 11225:

Hey Casliber, sorry to disturb you. I hope all is well with you. I saw your name listed as individuals who volunteer to peer review articles who can be contacted directly. I would appreciate it if you could peer review the

10490:

Oh. Oh. Oh. I guess the Cambridge meetup showed up on my account due to geolocation, and I erroneously assumed that it was the New England Cambridge I might have conceivably signed up for. Nevermind! Ignore my Americanism.

9911:

A huge "thank you" to all editors who helped clear the backlog and to others who helped out behind-the-scenes. See you at the next drive, and until then, please continue to help us work through the backlog. Happy editing!

10270:

don't really need another investigation. (But, it's such a great place I want to return and have another look). Last year I saw plenty of the native privet, but I didn't photograph them (being in self preservation mode).

10021: 9857: 8132:

I'd like to put this up for GAN, but even after my additions and changes it still feels like you wrote most of it :) Perhaps you could indulge me, give it a good going over, and put it up as a co-nom at your convenience?

7888: 6358: 10916: 10907: 10885: 9903: 5626:

be more complex. Once addressed in earnest, it will clear up any confusion from the Fate section which quotes a different metric. Bottom line? Hope to get all this done in a few days and submit. Any last thoughts?--

2930:

It's quite near my place; about ten minutes drive. Even closer to where Alex lives (assuming he still lives at the address he has been publishing under lately): only five minutes drive from there I would guess. If it's

11284:

Um. I am only an admin not a bureaucrat. Do you want me to delete the user page and talk page? I can do that, but I can't delete the user contribution history as such. I don't understand teh need for a new account...?

4048:

From the abstract of Somerville and May 2006: "Apothecia of these crops are of different macroscopic appearance, with lighter apothecia being mostly immature, and darker apothecia producing spores." ... so who knows?

199:

5713:

section for recent edits. As I point out on the Talk page, I'm trying to keep most of the early contributions while giving the whole section a "historical" focus. I think it works. Your insights however would be

2313:

What is going on in the lower image? Clearly this is an inflorescence in very early bud, but those furry white things are apparently not developing flower pairs. Are they some kind of protective bract or something?

9759:, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the 1486:, it's catching), but let me know if there's anything specific esp from BWP, Olsen or Harrison, where I have the books. Now, must be time for a couple of slices of bread with some meat in. 10:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC) 5144:. That will take you to a new Visibility sub-section which I've entitled "Rhytmic dance" — an effective metaphor, I think, for the star's oscillating character. Consistent with comments made a few weeks ago at 5058:

Just so you have a little context, what I love about this sub-section "The enigma" is I noticed with every single article I read on the internet all these conflicting quotes on Betelgeuse. My first reaction was

7297:

Emu won't be a problem. I can get any article from Emu (The journal) now and lots of other Australian peer-reviewed material thanks to figuring out electronic access to my uni library :) - I have, however, been

3828:

Sorry, forgot again. I've just scanned it now. Cas: I'll forward shortly; if you have Sasata's email address, can you forward it on please? Otherwise, Sasata: send me an email so I know where to send this scan.

4350:(i.e. post it anyway and see if it reeks!!!???). Needless to say, I haven't posted these articles as they never seem to get past the "Work in Progress" stage. Your thoughts on this would be much appreciated. 5283:

Hi Calisber. In notice you've been busy the last few days. When you have a moment and have been able to review the "chunks" enumerated above, your thoughts on what to do here would be really helpful. Click

2198:

was noted (the bract pattern remaining in the fossils). I seem to recall feeling bamboozled as well by the description when I read it some time ago. I will have to refresh myself with some bedtime reading....

5464:

I've gone ahead and included the revised "Angular anomalies" sub-section with a few additional improvements. When you have a chance, your insights on a few other issues would be helpful. You can find them

4717:

article. What I see, however with your discerning comments is that a focused and interested contributor can get "plugged in" pretty quick. This dialogue has been very useful. Let's see what happens next?

4206:

It is reference 49 in the current version now. I was looking very long for this bulletin, but I couldn't find it anywhere. Can You help me to find this bulletin, or do You know something exactlier about it?

716:

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

3144:

article for the full citation.) Page 92: "As its thickets suggest, parrotbush regenerates readily. A prolific flowerer, it produces many seeds. In the Darling Range it is a good colonizer of gravel-pits."

5163:

as a kind of outline tool. That way, when I read an article, I have an idea where the new information fits, I can cut and paste for future editing, and then come back to it later. I hope you find this

1954:

Hi Alastair, welcome back. Please note that my bahasa Indonesia is the pits; and that's four years along. It does take being tough to be here ;) Let me know if I can help. Been there, done that. Cheers,

10230:

in the next week or two. This time I have someone who wants to be with me. The problem with him, is that he has a 170 IQ and he makes me feel very silly in comparison. Plants to be searched for include

6457:

Luckily the echidna is pretty easy to retro-source. I found that it was modelled a lot on Augee's full lenght book :) Expanding too, I can't see how 15k is justifiaible for a prominent thing like that

10852:

since 1994. Once widespread and abundant, the population declined drastically in the 19th and early 20th centuries with the removal of most of its native habitat; the species completely vanished from

5914:

Thanks, lol. Well I have a proposal, you can FARC the Australian flora and fauna FAs and bring them back for the WikiCup final....and your FAs get reviewed real quick too...poor old Hamiltonstone and

4951:. I put them in context, so you can see what the article looks like. As I indicated a few days ago, I won't make the transfer until you've had a chance to review first. Let me know what you think. 7275:

Know any good books on emus. The only one I can find is from teh late 1960s... might be too old. The article is getting rundown and the usual webrefrot is a problem, and it doesnt look comprehensive

2889:

hybrid - how far is the tree from you? I'd compare the newgrowth/leaf dimensions/trunk all for comparison. Did it have any new flowers? Some of these old cones have an aura of prionotes about them...

4954:

My main concern is the ESA copyrighted information at the bottom of the Visibility section. Let me know if that is handled appropriately. There is still much more work to do. I have quite a few

3713:

Yeah, it'll do the trick. I gave the article a good push towards GA. Hesp, do you have easy access to Beaton 1984, or maybe Fuhrer, B,; May, T. (1993). "Host specificity of disc-fungi in the genus

281: 3808:

Thanks for finding that, wonder why it didn't show up in my database search. Cas, if it's too mush hassle for you to get these, let me know and I can order them, would take 1-2 weeks to get here.

1441:

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 (

9808: 9192:

The insane thing is I cannot find one reference which states that badja carpet is a form of Kunzea sp Wadbilliga....if you have one, great! If not, then I guess we just rustle up some more :)

2498:

Gosh, would it really?! I was quite proud of it but a bit unsure whether it had enough depth of field. But if I'll take anyone's word that it would probably pass, I'll take Noodle snacks. :-)

15: 10949: 10927: 6074:, but alot of the astrophysics I am out of my depth really, but fascinating nonetheless. We're still trawling through articles. Some more bird ones, but need to buff them to GA first, maybe 4583:. You will quickly find a group of interested editors helping out. This is a much better directed way of finding interested editors. I'll post a note at the astronomy wikiproject. I'd leave 10288:

by extinction. I'd hate to hurt it or damage it if I find it. The scientists have given up on it, considered a corpse, extinct, a dead or nearly dead thing. They reckon no-one can save it.

5661:

Understood. With the summer now behind us in Canada, I too have become very busy with work and other stuff. We'll at least get this to GA soon and then we can plan from there. Thanks.--

11154: 11100: 4527: 3227:

I've added a mention myself, in discussing high fecundity as fire adaptation. I have a handful of solid pathology papers here, so I'll make a start on a disease subsection next. G'night.

10374: 699:

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,

2788:

really so hard to get? 2 cites in 3 years for what is essentially the baseline review is far too little... even Mayr does not cite it - granted, most is not Paleogene, but still...).

11025: 10632: 10340:; we're looking to get more articles improved, preferrably to GA or better. I know you have come through with sources before, so take a look and see if there's anything you can add. 9773:. More general comments and discussions should be directed at the WikiCup talk page. One month remains in the 2010 WikiCup, after which we will know our champion. Good luck everyone! 8884:

Hi Cas: I'm headed your way in a few days for a tour round the southern half of the continent. Anything in particular you'd like me to try to get recordings of while I'm out there?

4584: 4559: 4381: 2146:

I haven't dissected an inflorescence, but in some species the pattern persists right through flowering and can be seen on the infructescence. You won't get a better example than this

4494:

In my own case, where I saw that I could contribute was simply taking Stub-Class, Low or Mid-Importance articles and get them up to Start or even C or B Class. The recent article

2352:

Now I have looked at the books and bract architecture, question is are they common bracts or are they something which falls off (don't think so but..). Something else to ask Alex.

10002: 3350:

Sorry, didn't see this last night. Done now. I have a couple of papers on root physiology that I want to read to see if it is worth adding a paragraph, and then I'll be all done.

8317: 5495:

produced a very useful result but also triggered a copyright violation requiring some attention. Your insights as always would be valuable. You can see my comments by clicking

9797: 8417:. But ja, we probably have done a little bit to help peace between Magpie and Man; in the case I read of it was more peace between Parent and Child, over a matter of fashion. — 2326:

You certainly see those thingies on the developing buds of alot of banksias. I'd be intrigued what the Nikulinsky book, which is essentially a series of plates of a developing

1513:

Cute tool that. We'll see how many GAs, DYKs and FAs we can get. Got bits and pieces of horticultural stuff to add yet :) ...just musing on how to bonsai my species... Cheers,

1077:

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.

10778: 6907: 9521:

You THINK she likes them? You spend too much time on wiki, spend more time with her! (yea yea, I should talk), but before you do that, archive the bulk of this talk page ;-)

6596: 1665:

She's a senior tutor in philosophy at Cambridge, written several very entertaining and informative books related to the history of science, probably including her doctorate.

8431: 4377: 9696: 9170:

Hi, is there anything I can do to get the Kunzea on DYK? I'm an un-educated mountain climber, bushwalker and not an academic or intellectual. But it was wonderful to climb

2138:

You know what I don't get? On page 245 of George (1981), and again on page 40 of Collins (2007), George gives a diagram showing the arrangement of unit inflorescences on a

7936:

can be included in your tally, even if they do not have a copy edit tag. This is a great place to go if you are interested in finding a higher quality article to work on.

4030:

Hmmm, that's what I initially thought when I read the description and sketches in Beaton 1982, but after seeing B&B's 1872 sketches, I was pretty sure Cas's pic was a

3653:@Sasata - I'll leave it up to you whether a solid GA and one DYK for the whole shebang, or 4 species articles - you've got the material and I am happy either way. cheers, 2409:

Wherever one of those "furry things" is found loose on the surface of a spike, you will also find a gap in the bract pattern beneath it, where the common bract is absent;

10384: 9835: 6488: 6429:

Cool. I just started reconciling the mainland extinction stuff...and you saw the 95 articles to wade through on talk. I'll see if Ucucha can find as many problems as he

5159:

and think I've possibly gone mad! No need for alarm however. I just found that I needed to bring some organization to the drafting of these sections, so I'm using the

2047: 1367:

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,

10173:

Thanks for looking at this fabulous wildflower. And you did yet another terrific job. Lately I'm trying to find local orchids. With my $ 85 camera I've taken photos of

1495: 512:

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

10337: 7446:

I hope I can live up to everyone's expectations, do my best for Knowledge, and take to heart the constructive criticism. Always feel free to message me if I'm around.

5477: 5527:

to see comments and get to the latest version in the sandbox. Thanks again for your on-going support of this project. I'm pooped! Fortunately, we're almost there.--

10626: 9588: 9584: 6644: 4531: 10996: 9755:. As ever, anything contestants worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at 9744: 9572: 204: 139: 5083:

One last thing. I got your note... All systems go... I'll be cutting and pasting into the main article shortly. As each new section matures, I'll let you know.

9714: 5179:

need to have a sense as to where all the pieces fit. In any event, you'll see how each section is coming along. Some sections are more advanced than others.

5140:

Like last time, I have imported the most recent version of Betelgeuse into my User page so you can see the new section in context. It can be found by clicking:

10414: 10249:

Last year the top mountain ridge was covered in flowers of the Imlay Boronia. The rainforest gully is of interest, with only a few species of plants. see link:

8142: 5347:

Hi Casliber. When you have a chance, I've posted some recent thoughts on the future direction of the Betelgeuse article, and would value your insights. Click

4898:

together. That way, I hope to have both these sections flow properly. Before I do this "block transport", I'll let you know, so you can offer any suggestions.

3410: 11159: 8318: 8085: 3962:

As OZtrylia has a notoriously under described rang of and field of mycology study - any signs of further fungi or algae work is to be encouraged at all points

9985: 5278: 5253: 3330:

mentioned its colonising of disturbed areas being observed in the Darling Scarp.Can you add as I am wrestling with microsoft word in another tab? Back later.

2264:

Haha yeah. Not a bad comparison at all. a diamond pattern it is there as well. You sorta let your eyes go a little out of focus and see two diagonal lines....

10824:

with a red forehead and white rings around the eyes. Two subspecies have been described, although there are doubts regarding the distinctiveness of the form

8455: 8448: 8432: 4406: 1457:

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.

11158:

in which you may wish to comment. It is expected to close in about a week. You have received this message because you participated in a similar discussion

6361:

has started, and will run for a month. Thanks for signing up. There's a special prize for most edits on the first day, in case you've got high ambitions. --

1786:

is an interesting paper: "Between 5% and 25% of species were projected to suffer range losses of 100% by 2080." I can send you a PDF if you're interested.

11266: 10748: 10200:

Interesting...let's see what we can do. The articles don't have to be that big for DYK. My free time is a little erratic at for the next few weeks though.

9013: 7933: 1341: 546: 525: 10279: 9438:. You been neglecting me lately wrt links. What nothing from the Churchs archives you are not compleded to share? I'm all abot the triffids at the moment. 1313:

This is the great thing about uncertainty. Lacking an answer, the reports of Maimonides, Mary Douglas and the other guy mentioned are fascinating.Cheers,

11113: 8333: 7388:

Sorry, I have no idea about that one. I'll try to take a look when I can -got a fair bit on my plate at present and somewhat hard to get enthused about

5148:, I'm using standardized terminology for "major headings" and descriptive terminology for "sub-headings". I think it works. Let me know your thoughts. 4170: 2577:

The tricky issue is finding free images or navigating fair use policy - eg screenshots etc. I am not great on policy and will ask someone more clued in.

11269:

or tell me how to do it? I was contemplating coming back but then a few things went wrong so am off again...(no, I am not pissed, just amused). Cheers.

10948:

A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants, some of which are exclusive to GOCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the

8468: 4522: 2529:. Anyhow, I was wondering if you also had a hand in the special edition crowns because Durova looks to have her hands full with numerous other things. 11072: 9830: 9611: 10631:

Hiya, you specified an interest in articles about food at the volunteers list for peer reviewing - I was wondering if you might mind having a look at

8383: 1173:

The name has been republished three times in 1821: in Hooker, Roques and Gray (in that order). Roques maintained Persoon's circumscription, including

9729: 9143:

Stupid Kunzea - looked through my books. Unbelievable that not one makes the connection they are the same (even though they are) - have to lose it.

7440: 7139:

I just wanted to say thanks for all the help along the way, from your guidance with my first FAC until my most recent additions. Believe it or not,

6979:

You've done a good job, and as a fellow New South Welshman and Sydneysider I'll be rooting for you in the WikiCup along with some others. Good luck!

2847: 1393: 8990:

If you are still interested, please check the list to see if any information needs to be updated or added - especially your availability. Thank you.

4858:

I had a few minutes spare now so was doing a bit of copyediting to make the lead a bit more snappy. I will look at all the etymology stuff tonight.

1283:

is not given explicitly in the Hebrew Bible, hence Bible commentators have been offering guesses since ancient times. My own favourite, however, is

10836:. Once the female lays eggs she will remain in the nest and continuously incubate them until hatching. The chicks are fed by both parents and will 10380: 9580: 9573: 3795: 3297: 2330:

inflorescence, says (not sure, I don't recall whether it had commentary...). Another thing to look up. Was about to look up the patterns just now.

7104:

wrote an article about himself, and the article was put up for speedy deletion. If there's anything you can do to salvage this one, please do! :)

10177:. These have proven of interest to a variety of people, and have generated plenty of comment. The stub is already getting a good number of hits. 9009: 8996: 8980: 8260: 8220: 8077: 7299: 7198: 10430:

which has started to attract disruptive editors since I took an interest. As an admin who specialises in plants, you may wish to investigate.

9893:

next drive, as long as you participated in the September drive. Over the course of the next week or two, we will be handing out the barnstars.

4958:, but decided to at least get these two ready for prime time. If you think they work, I can copy them over later today. I await your thoughts. 4612:... Hmmm! That was the missing distinction! I will follow your suggestions and see where it leads. Also, thanks for your contributions in the 10274:

If you are free, you are most welcome to climb the great southern mountain with us. The top narrow ridge is likely to be covered in flowers of

8841: 8805: 8018: 8014: 11107: 10832:, extinct since 1912. The Puerto Rican Amazon reaches sexual maturity between three and four years of age. It reproduces once a year and is a 10646: 10500: 5682: 4346:

I do have a few articles I've been working on that I need help with, but haven't figured out how or with whom to collaborate...except for the

3690:

here so I might rescan at higher resolution. Four DYKs and 1 GA doesn't sound unreasonable for the lot, but I'll see what I can come up with.

1959: 10840:

60 to 65 days after hatching. This parrot's diet is varied and consists of flowers, fruits, leaves, bark and nectar obtained from the forest

7070:

No, that was my impression too. Hence my grabbing Web of Science results and chucking it on talk page. RL just suddenly got very hectic too.

2512: 5989:(a) Shee-it, didnae see that. Okay, more reviewing a-coming. (b) Frigging fauna of Oz...at least it'll be a dang site more inneresting than 1864: 554: 10427: 7242: 6174: 5603:

has a chance to review the latest revisions. Hopefully, it will pass the grade. If you'd like to take a last look, that would be great.--

4385:

the "New Wikipedian" trying to figure out the most effective way to interface with others in the community might make this section useful.

2879: 1055:

65. 1797 is cited as devalidated: "Introduced to cover three groups already previously distinguished by Persoon (in Tent. 18. 1797) under

151: 93: 11234:

up to a good article status. However some more work is needed to get there. Some background information; the article is quite biased, per

7292: 6430: 5982: 2548: 2454:: clear evidence of the common and floral bracts forming one of those little furry upside-down pyramids, with the flower arising from it. 11094: 10901: 9981: 9312: 8804:

I'm not a draconian monster bent on salting the wiki of any and all edits by banned users: it's not even feasible, really. Cheers :: -->

8296:

Yeah cool ;) Take care of RL stuff, have a good time and I'll be happy to do some article-buffing with you when you resurface :) cheers,

7269: 6987: 6814:

so far, Kotare must be busy or away. I will have another look a bit later if I get time, but if you can clear any up that might be good.

4414: 1949: 1720: 1702: 1353: 1328: 31: 28: 11189:, but I would have to look at the other accounts to confirm or rule it out. Is there any case that I can read about Seldonquin's block? 10460: 5516: 5307: 5273: 2473: 617: 9752: 8633: 6722: 6668: 2960:. A new species, plus implications, I assume, for historical biogeography. I can't access the PDF myself; I've asked Rkitko if he can. 2816: 2602: 2533: 2493: 2033: 2020: 1933: 574: 10573: 7407: 7381: 7359: 7339: 7317: 7182: 7085: 7065: 7043: 7022: 6974: 6474: 6452: 6341: 6319: 6258: 6117: 6034: 6008: 5541: 5131: 3496:

you had asked about a couple of weeks ago. There's enough info there to make DYK-worthy stubs on the genus, and three of the species (

2699: 2667: 2634: 2613: 2592: 2570: 10587: 9690: 9560: 9337: 8368: 8354: 7143:, and maybe next year I can make a run for the Genghis Khan triple crown. I couldn't have made it this far without your guidance. – 7001: 6981: 4518: 4457: 4410: 4202:

Eiker A. (1990). "Commercial mushroom production in South Africa". Bulletin (Pretoria: Department of Agricultural Development) (418).

3668: 2522: 2098: 1534: 1089:

has been considered validly published on different occasions, depending on various considerations." Proposed types include (given as

11300: 6799: 6558: 6273: 5635: 5612: 5312: 4907: 3833: 3321: 3058: 2979: 2752:

I should have read it before posting here, in which case I wouldn't have bothered posting here at all: it is as boring as bat shit.

2732:

Interesting - makes for some dry reading. Hadn't realised it was 10 populations out of 27 which have become extinct since 1996.. :(

2376:

Having found nothing in George, I've been reading Douglas's stuff on ontogeny of Proteaceae flowers, and found nothing there either.

1573: 1564: 9748: 9358: 8553: 8473: 8119: 7547: 7527: 6648: 5670: 5656: 5453: 5245: 5222: 5168:

helpful in understanding how I'm trying to tackle this project. If you have any idea as to how it can be improved, let me know.

5121: 5092: 4989: 4927: 4888: 4873: 4853: 4826: 4805: 4773: 4705: 4654: 4475: 4449: 4258: 4240: 3803: 3632: 3615: 3571: 3559: 3466: 3457: 3417: 3374: 3354: 3345: 3231: 3222: 3202: 3149: 3131: 3111: 3098: 3069:

as soon as I have time. I printed out several useful papers today, but have been too busy to read them let alone work them in. The

3032: 3012: 3003: 2943: 2904: 2756: 2747: 2692: 2526: 2502: 2442: 2383: 2367: 2345: 2238: 2213: 1824: 1811: 1639: 1621: 1552: 1528: 72: 9792: 8423: 8404: 8267: 8253: 5757: 5728: 4016:. They look like little light grey maggots on the follicles. Based on the photo and textual description, I would suggest that the 3165: 1769: 830: 10765:). If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the 10322: 10215: 10105: 9207: 8869: 8849: 8834: 8709: 7717: 6844: 6580: 5692: 4666: 4043: 3874: 3860: 3847: 3823: 3741: 3708: 3535: 1429: 1411: 1267: 796: 758: 741: 711: 9540: 9158: 9138: 9114: 8937: 8389:

Hah, nice to see we've done just that little bit to make the world a better place where Man and Magpie can live in peace.... :)

8311: 8176: 7513: 5901: 5877: 5723: 5704: 5286: 5260: 4362: 4138: 4118: 4096: 3985:"Many kinds of fungi are associated with Banksias. There is even a genus of fungi named for their association with these plants— 3956: 3900: 3761: 3699: 2836: 1247: 10300: 10191: 9747:) closely follows in third place with 1100 points. For those who are interested, data about the finalists has been compiled at 9516: 9476: 8629: 8549: 7237: 7202: 6737:

could be the last game to be played there. It's looking likely that not that many more games will be played at Knowsley Road,

6543: 6525: 6205: 6166: 2279: 2259: 2167: 11086: 11066: 10138:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page 10071:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page 9684: 9397:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page 9246:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page 8746:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page 8666:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page 8586:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page 8506:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page 8098: 7830:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page 7793: 7750:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page 7670:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page 7590:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page 6634: 6624: 5342: 4058: 2427:

Interesting - Gah! Forgot to ring Alex - evening is a crazy time with little availability for me, but will see what I can do.

1998: 1854: 1711:

Ah! Glad I mentioned it then. I'm very confident you'll find Patricia's writing as entertaining as it is informative. Cheers.

1681: 10472: 10154: