User talk:Casliber/Archive 2

Hesperian 23:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey Cas,

That is a Motorbike Frog (Litoria moorei), closely related to the recently featured Green and Golden Bell Frog (Litoria aurea), the Southern Bell Frog (Litoria raniformis), and many other frogs we don't have photos of. Because this frog is so common in Perth, I have been able to find lots on Flickr which we could use. Thanks, and I'm glad your looking :). --liquidGhoul 13:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Merry Christmas. You voted for kangaroo as Australian collaboration. It has been selected, so please help to improve it towards featured article status. Thankyou. Scott Davis ^Talk 14:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

{{unblock-auto}}

Hi - I think I have been autoblocked as I can't see any warnings on my userpage or contribs. I use a work computer sometimes (like now) and suspect this may be a computer someone has else has used. cheers. Cas Liber 23:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Welcome. You might like to note the discussion at User talk:Kelly Martin. Hesperian 10:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry it took so long to reply. As you probably know with the Banksia article, it takes a lot to get a broad subject featured. And it usually only works if there are a few really dedicated contributors. I had that with frog (3-5 of us), and you have it with the Banksia wikiproject. If we can get enough people to work on the Kangaroo article, then I think we can get it featured, but it will take longer than a fortnight. I'm willing to help, I have a few books, but we need to rally up some help. Any idea who will help? If you want me to copyedit any of those articles you posted on my talk page, I'll be happy to. Thanks. --liquidGhoul 05:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 21:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks again Casliber. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I made the merge discussed. No content was lost and what is not in the article is on the discussion page. I tried to weave toether all content to flow well. Noles1984 22:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 17:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Happy 5,000th edit, Cas! :) Happy New Year, too! Firsfron of Ronchester 21:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wow, thanks for the barnstar! Forgot to mention: the Banksia article looked really great on Wikipedia's main page last week. Cheers! Firsfron of Ronchester 22:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Here's what it looked like (just imagine the Wikipedia logo above it, and some other junk on the right and below it). Firsfron of Ronchester 22:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

No need to imagine - here's an image. (I like to capture an image of my featured articles on the main page - it is one of my many vanities). Hesperian 23:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sweet! But that's in Firefox; where's the same version in Internet Explorer, in case Cas uses IE? ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 23:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

"Internet Explorer"? Never heard of it. :-) Hesperian 23:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Kind of like Opera 2.0. But with more bugs. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ha - I alternate between Firefox and IE (wife likes the latter while I like the former). Great captured image Cas Liber 06:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

You wrote: "...will getsome aussie native garden pix soon.Cas Liber 19:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC) Love the flowering plant you added. More photos, please! We need to see other types of natural landscaping. My front yard is only typical of a woodland forest floor. Thanks and "cheers" as they say down under. Noles1984 17:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey Cas - Thanks for the BarnStar by the way - the mycomorphbox has been a bit of a trial by fire, and it's nice to have the encouragement! Could you do me the favor of listing the "list of species in genus X" pages you've started? I'll make it a point of expanding them from my Mushroom Demystified book as I did for cortinarius. Debivort 06:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done! :) But we'll have to fix the double redirects listed here. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Cas,

As a member of WP:Dinosaurs, could you please take a look at Unicerosaurus AFD? Firsfron of Ronchester 10:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Casliber, I was bringing attention to WA amphibians when I saw your request for id of a frog at liquidghoul's page. Anything you can do to contribute to Category:Amphibians of Western Australia would be appreciated by many readers, and me. I have been enjoying the pages on banksias. Regards, Fred 13:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, I don't expect you would pop over to take some pix. My invite was to an experienced editor with contibutions of substance and an interest in australian biota. Just what we need at WP:WA (please consider joining in there too). Any comment or contributions from you would be valuable, especially with some distance from the subject. Regards, Fred 12:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey Cas, Any ideas re: this question about this image? Hesperian 10:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Some more imaages here Gnangarra 14:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Of course it's all fine. However, if the Dinosaur collaboration has hit hard times of late, no doubt a less popular species, the fungus, will have less voters. But I assume you considered that. In any case, your message sounded like an offer for a collaborative effort to get a fungus to the main page? I would gladly accept such an offer if you really think we couild get one to FA status? As you know, although I'm better at writing dino articles, I have no problem deviating to others in the name of a better edit count. So if you are in fact suggesting we team up & write a FA, I'll gladly accept. Any idea of which to write up? I'm betting something like the toad stool or truffle will be by far the easiest. So post me when you want to begin, or if you just wanted my help with your collaboration. I would enjoy working with you though... :) Spawn Man 04:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey, Cas- I'm fried and dumb and can't find the fungi collaboration page vote you mentioned on my talk page. You can answer here when I post here if you want--I'll have you on my watchlist. -Eric ^(talk) 19:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Cas,

Is it within your power to fix http://farrer.csu.edu.au/ASGAP/banksSG/banksiasg-4-3.pdf? Page four won't render or print for me. A problem with the image at the top of the page I think.

Hesperian 04:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Could you deal with the merger issue for Chroogomphus rutilus one way or another and perhaps expand this article just a little? Drop me a line as soon as you do and I will place it on the main page DYK. Thanks. House of Scandal 10:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

• OK - merged two stubs but I am knackered and need to sleep. Will try to do a bit later cheers Cas Liber 12:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I expanded Chroogomphus in a major way. I'd say it's more than ready for DYK now. House of Scandal 16:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I seem to be bugging you about Banksia a lot lately. There's a degree of contradiction in the various stories about who first discovered B. rosserae. In the Acknowledgements section of Olde and Marriott, they mention "Ann Pilkington who discovered Banksia rosserae and who drew it to our attention through various third parties."[1] But in the Banksia Study Group Newsletter, Kevin Collins tell a completely different story, about how it was first discovered by John Cullen in September 2000.[2] Do you know anything about this. Is there an actual dispute over who discovered it, or is there some way to reconcile the two stories? Hesperian 03:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks heaps for the perspective. I will change

"It is uncertain who first discovered B. rosserae."

to

"There is some dispute over who first discovered B. rosserae."

and leave it at that, as any further "gossip" would be unverifiable anyhow. Hesperian 11:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sigh. Yes, you're right that we shouldn't be claiming or even hinting at a dispute if there's no documentary evidence to back that up. But I don't want to kill off the entire paragraph dealing with the rather interesting story of how it was discovered. I have retreated to "Reports of who first discovered B. rosserae are somewhat contradictory." Can you have a look at Banksia rosserae#Taxonomic history and let me know if this is okay? Hesperian 04:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Hesperian 11:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey I see you're doing stuff with birds - Kakapo's bout to get teh chop from FA Cas Liber 02:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm only tagging talk pages; I vowed to work on articles about archosaurs, and as birds are archosaurs, I figured I could at least do some talk page tagging. But I really know little about birds, so I probably won't help out on Kakapo; I did see your comment on the FA review; I hope you (or someone) will be able to fix it up before it gets the axe. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 02:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Cas Liber. I've outlined my reasons for the merger on the Kookaburra talk page.--Just James 07:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

It is the 17th of January (UTC) :) -Painezor ^TC 04:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Casliber- Hey, you wouldn't have rated that L. aurantiacum article as low importance if you'd had the steak I put my first ones on! But seriously, those templates are a good addition. What is it in the template that puts a hyphen between "low" and "importance" in the following line?: "This article is on a subject of low-importance within mycology." I found the page but couldn't see anything. -Eric ^(talk) 20:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Eric, I am not good at navigating my way round templates just yet. Will have a look later as I have to dash out the door to work. Please feel free to embellish beefsteak description. I never knew if it was eaten widely - if so, then bump up importnace to mid I'd guess.....Cas Liber 20:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

No, no--I was just busting you. I think you probably got the importance right, unless you take into account a possible chilling of American-"Soviet" relations due to the Red Menace coming down from Boston every fall and ravaging my little town's crop of that species. You can answer here. -Eric ^(talk) 21:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Actually it turns out it is one of the few fungi (that we know of) the aborigines ate, so theres' something to be said about its consumption. In Sydney Eastern Europeans go on bus tours to big pine plantations just outside Sydney every easter (autumn) to pick all teh european fungi that grow there. Cas Liber 02:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

European? Were they cultivated there intentionally?

So, did you notice what I mean about the above hyphen? Do you know where that template was born? -Eric ^(talk) 04:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

When you add these to talk pages, could you be sure to check the "minor edit" box? You should probably do so when you add a grade to the box, too.

Basically, those additions are coming up all over my watchlist – if they're tagged as minor edits, I can easily filter them out, which makes it easier to keep an eye on substantial changes or discussions I do want to keep an eye on.

Thanks, Peter —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peter G Werner (talk • contribs) 16:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC).Reply

OK, I was doing so many - also when one starts a talk page the description is usually right there so I thought it was immdiately obvious what it was. Cas Liber 18:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Looks like we celebrated milestones on the same article... Triceratops! Jinx! ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 01:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, as a birdlover I hate to think of any bird as of low importance :), but wondered how you go interpreting the scale. If all individual species are of at least mid-importance or higher, have you ranked any bird articles as of low importance? I guess the way I have seen it done on Wikiproject fungi and Banksia is that low importance=specialised area (I rated alot of aussie birds like that) so that there ends up being a spread of articles. cheers Cas Liber 12:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes; there is no bird or animal species page of low importance, in my opinion. An article about "Changes in the diet of the Blackbird in Cornwall through different seasons" might be of low importance. We are rating ornithology as a hole and not just the species pages. In Chemistry I guess that all the chemical elements are of high importance - it is not necessary to rate between them. An article of the "History of mining of Potassium pyrites in Cornwall" might be lower importance. The bird species are the basics of ornithology as chemical elements are the basis of chemistry. Do you see what I mean? If there are any doubts, it would be best to ask for a consensus opinion on the talk page. I agree it is a bit subjective, but the wiki guideline can help to decide on a rating of an article. Snowman 13:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your contributions. — ERcheck (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

You might be interested to see how User:Guinnog has organised flags on his user page. Snowman 11:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

G'day Cas,

I was wondering whether you could ID these fungi I took photos of at Barrington Tops last year.

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=368565935&size=l http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=368565929&size=l http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=368565923&size=l

Thanks. --liquidGhoul 02:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've uploaded it to commons. Thanks. --liquidGhoul 14:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've got a couple more for you. These were taken a while ago, so they same mistakes apply. Will try to get more info when I take fungi photos in the future. Thanks. --liquidGhoul 11:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

http://www.flickr.com/photos/52507572@N00/385373814/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/52507572@N00/385373818/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/52507572@N00/385373816/

Thanks for the IDs. I have asked others, and they say that it is Cymatoderma elegans. They can be other colours (apparntly violet, which would be pretty cool). The furry one is either too immature to ID or has a mold infection, irony I guess! :). --liquidGhoul 03:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, you just created this article, and the fact it was off the top of your head would explain the lack of sources, but it would be nice if you would provide some. Also, the article does not completely assert the notability of the band- if you could cite two independent, non trivial sources, or cite a source showing how high some of their hits came on the charts (If it was high enough to be considered notable) then the article would be out of notability trouble. J Milburn 10:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why not post a message at the relevent Wikiprojects? Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian history and Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians for instance? Someone there may be able to help you. J Milburn 19:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Casliber - I've done a bit of work on the above article since you commented - and was wondering if there was anything more you wanted to comment on. Any help would be great. Thanks. JROBBO 01:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

...I'm trying to figure out consensus - it doesn't really spell out the proportions of votes which will render and article successful (2/3rds? absolute? 100%?). Looks OK as there really isn't anything we can do except possibly open a can of worms with a section on posture of shoulder joints....

PS: Jinx hahaha - my kids play that at school now.....Cas Liber 21:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

It has to be pretty close to absolute. At this point, although the objections are very minor, I'm not sure it will pass. I'm going to see what I can fix tonight, in the hopes that the few remaining objections will be addressed. Any idea what is wrong with "horns more erect"? Firsfron of Ronchester 02:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've sent RebSkii a message asking for clarification, or suggestions for alternate wording. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I just saw you asked for clarification on the FAC page. Nevermind, then. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 03:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Although I may be mistaken, I find your way of dealing with my FAC remarks is a bit less than what I'd expect from you. On most of the FAC discussions where I have placed things to act on, you have either defended the article or done nothing. If the vote was more opposes than supports, I believe this wouldn't be so, but because the FAC's have a larger portion of support, you never seem to act on my requests. This is not what I think of when I picture a diplomatic editor. I fear now that my comments will go unheard & some of the sentences I pointed out at Triceratop's FAC will go un noticed now that it has been passed. I always tried to fix every opposition. Anyway, don't take this the wrong way. Spawn Man 21:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Reply to your reply: If you checked the FAC, I stated a new section was not needed, but the text would be better suited to being placed in the opening section of Paleobiology. You have expanded a little & my only concern was that above & the children's book comment. "Factual children's books about dinosaurs generally contain material on Triceratops, with at least two featuring it in combat with Tyrannosaurus, generally as a climactic episode toward the end of the book." Is unencyclopedic & generalistic. Since apparently we only need 2 books to be able to make this broad assumption, I will find 2 children's books which are about dinosaurs & see if they have at least 2 triceratops fighting a T. rex at the end. Likewise, if they even do have triceratops, I will see if they are fighting at the end. Scratch that, not only will I find 2 books, but I will raise you 2 more. Your comment - "I also think you really need to take a look at your attitude, the negativity is really starting to get me down - if I or someone else were to write some of the things you've written I'm sure we'd never hear the end of it." - is unclear & in my view wrong. I have not been negative, but have offered constructive critism. I was very diplomatic, saying great work so far, but it needs more work. I also kept a calm tone & only pointed out the as you call it, slobbish work ethic. I do not get "if I or someone else were to write some of the things you've written I'm sure we'd never hear the end of it" either. In any case, I was very civil with you & felt that you were only defending & not acting on what was a very reasonable request, most of which you fixed. Anyway, will be back with the books.... Spawn Man 22:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Cas!

Actually, a lot of this is my fault. I really wanted to help out a little more on Triceratops, but had a lot on my plate this past week (mostly Algebra). I apologize, because that put a lot of pressure on you and J to patch the article where needed. It's clear you felt quite a bit of stress, and I feel like I should have helped out more. Forgive me? I feel the two sentences in dispute (one from Spawn Man, one from RebSkii) are sort of quibbling, but I feel we should still be open to suggestions for their improvement (although I still don't understand what's wrong with "more erect horns"). I've left comments on both users' talk pages asking for input on what they think should replace these two disputed sentences. Two sentences should not be a bar to FA status, so we just have to find what works for everyone on these two bits. Thank you so much for your enormous amount of work. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'll post what I said on my talk page here too...

Well I don't see why a phrase can't be said like: "A reoccuring theme in children's dinosaur books is a final showdown or battle between the Triceratops & T. rex. As such these two dinosaurs are often depicted & thoguht of as natural enemies." Then we could slot the text about that show "The truth about killer dinos" & how the guy found about the reality from this sort of fight? Sounds good to me, will post to you both as the current sentence just isn't working too well & could confuse people...

I think this could suit everyone & doesn't sound as generalistic. It also sounds more like what an encyclopedia would say... Thoughts? Spawn Man 22:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I feel like I do need to, because this process would have been much smoother with three people fixing problems, adjusting text, and responding to comments, instead of 2.5 people. I agree that the last-minute comments were surprising and disappointing (in the sense that we thought we were there) after the work that was put in. If you had had less on your plate from the beginning, you probably wouldn't have seen Spawn Man's comments in such a negative light. So I do apologize. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

On the contrary Cas, I don't feel you are at fault for anything at all. I just wanted my comments to be better recepted. Other than that, I'm glad we can come to an agreement... :) Spawn Man 00:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Talking to Gnangarra the other day I discovered for the first time that when you invited us to that Wildflower event you were actually in attendance yourself. Humblest apologies - if I'd know it was a chance for a meetup, I would certainly have rearranged my calendar to get there. Hesperian 10:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC) P.S. email. Hesperian 10:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Nevermind - we'll be back over that way every 9 months or so I guess. Great nursery :) Cas Liber 10:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Saw your latest comments on the FAR - the deadlines aren't hard and fast. If you think you can improve it within a one or two-week extension, you can ask for more time by posting a note to the FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I trimmed off some unnecessary information in the New Zealand Wildlife Service section. Please check it. This article should remain in FA, so I'll try to help with citations. Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 16:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I still have some sources at hand for citations. I'll give some comments later. — Indon (reply) — 19:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Casliber; I'd certainly be interested in it, but not for a couple of weeks. I promised I'd see about expanding the Miscellaneous section, and I'm in Iguanodon mode right now. Once that's filled in, I'll give Thescelosaurus another look. J. Spencer 15:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 03:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I know this is probably going to do squat for my reputation now (Not that I ever really had one), but I thought I'd leave a note of apology to everyone involved in my recent actions. An explaination is in order too. First off, I had a bad real life situation, that I really don't want to talk about, on the day this all started. I shouldn't have edited on Wikipedia afterwards, but I did. When I saw the situation with Riana's RfA, it kind of set off a build up of unvented anger at my situation & it was un needed. My whole tyraid had very little to do with the RfA, but I guess I took it out on that angle anyway. The way I was handled could have been better, but I wont go there in threat of making this sound like a back handed apology. My apologies go to Riana, who was also having a real life crisis at the time too. Basically the whole thing was a misunderstanding & venting process which I involved you all in. In regard to the whole sock puppetry thing, I had told my brother about my problems in due trust & he went & did something stupid on here. I don't really know what else to say but sorry. If that & a little bit of hard work repairing relationships on here doesn't change your current view point of me, then I don't think anything will. So again, sorry if I've inconvenienced you guys in any way & I hope that over time you'll think better of me. I'd love if you guys could forgive & hopefully forget & I wasn't really in control of myself these past few days. Hopefully things can get back to normal. :) Spawn Man 06:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC) P.S. I'm kind of embarassed that you saw me like that. Sorry Cas that I've let you down...Reply

Although it is short, undercited & very bullet pointish (too many short stop start sentences), the Tuber (genus) article you gave me a link to needs the lest work done in other areas & I think it would be wise to work on that one. The other link, toadstool, is too far gone for an FA attempt right now. It needs a lot of work... Spawn Man 00:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey I've noticed you're a regular on rugby league articles, particulary NRL ones. I need your advice on something I'm thinking of starting up on the project. Many WikiProjects have Article Improvement Drives which have different levels of success. I'm thinking of starting one up for this one too, but instead of voting on an article I would rather strive to improve one NRL club every fortnight and bring it up very close to featured status. Now it seems as though there'd be a lot of work involved, but there are also a lot of club fans out there who'd probably be willing to participate. Basically there are 30 weeks in the NRL season and there are 15 club pages that are not yet featured. I propose that we all have a schedule to work on one new article every second round, in alphabetical order. By the end of the season hopefully we will have 15 near-complete, if not complete articles. My only concern at this stage is the dedication of editors to help out other team pages that they are not interested in. Basically in order to get the support of editors like these, we need a few leaders in the project. If you are willing to dedicate a bit of your time every week into this and if you have any further suggestions, could you let me know at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby league/Article improvement drive? Thanks, --15:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Cas;

I was thinking that it would be fitting for the Iguanodon article to use British spellings, and Firs suggested you as someone who could do this. Would you be interested? J. Spencer 03:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yep -I had a brief look; there aren't too many words different. Will haev another but have been up against it a bit..Cas Liber 03:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks heaps for those. The B. pulchella image is magnificent. Hesperian 10:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

...and has just claimed prime real estate at Banksia ser. Abietinae. Hesperian 10:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Gosh this is exciting. I think tonight I'll just sit back and watch you add images. :-) Hesperian 11:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Discussion you might be interested in at the bottom of Template talk:Taxobox. Hesperian 23:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

That wasn't anything to be worried about, she took the comment the wrong way. Spawn Man 07:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ahh, your comments about my block cracked me up & made me see the whole thing in a positive light. I do seem to use kerosene don't I? He he he... See you around... :) Spawn Man 23:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'd very much like to nominate Archaeopteryx for FAC. However, I know it is nowhere near the standard needed. I've done some reworking & thoguht that nothing would be better than a 3 person collaboration. The article is truly a mess. It is very important to all aspects of paleontolgy etc, & deserves a better article. Iguanodon is going superbly with little to none on the task list for it, so I see no reason why you'd not be able to lend a hand. I was hoping for myself, Firsfron & you to be able to work on it at least to sorta suitable standard. I've made a start, but am nowhere near as capable as you guys. If the day ever did come to nominate, I'd love to do that as well & I will help out heaps to earn that right. I just don't think I have the right knowledge to do a techinical rewrite of the subject like you two do. Any help or responses will be much appreciated. :) Spawn Man 03:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wow! You work fast. I was just going to start on the inline citations. If you need a break, just say (I wouldn't mind the extra edits to my edit count) :) So I'll take this as a yes, I can help & Firsfron is on board too. Don't feel obliged to though, I just feel safer knowing there are great editors backing me up incase I miss something. :) Thanks, Spawn Man 04:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks man. As I said, don't feel obliged. Who knew fungi were so popular eh? ;) I'll finish off the cites (unless you want to). Just so you know in case we get too many edit conflicts. :) Spawn Man 04:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply