User talk:Samsara

Thank you for your vote on my RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a vote of 41/0/1.

Please accept a slice of panettone as an expression of my gratitude. Feel free to help yourself to some chocolate zabaglione as well.

I am humbled by the trust placed in me to use the tools wisely.

Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 21:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pix

Hi Samsara,

Thanks for your note on my talk page. First off, I can't believe there's a Casliber and a Calibas. That's as confusing as Samsara and Spamsara.

On my talk page, you wrote: "nobody has been able to make a strong general case for head shots in birds or any other larger taxon"; Actually, there are several dinosaurs known only for their skulls or mandibles, and we could only illustrate that portion of the body (conversely, many sauropods are known for skeletons missing the head). Some dinosaurs are recognized as separate genera because of their skulls: particularly the ceratopsians and the pachycephalosaurs.

There are so many dinosaurs known from single bones, or only bits of bone... or teeth. I'd like articles on these genera to be able to reach FAC, but if there is a mandatory "no head shot" rule or somesuch, I worry that articles will be rejected on spurious grounds by users simply unfamiliar with the condition of many fossil specimens. Does that make sense? Firsfron of Ronchester 15:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, which is why I tried to get people to appreciate that phrases such as "unless there are special reasons for not doing so" are repeatedly used in the original proposal. I think this is preferable to giving a long list of known exclusions, because such a list is bound to be incomplete and going to be met with new, not previously listed examples that then require continuous updating of any such list. That latter situation sounds like the real nightmare to me, but allowing for exceptions in very special cases is fine. I would prefer to inject some clarity into the situation rather than continue to rant my mouth off at every FPC that leaves part of an animal's appearance to the viewer's best guess. Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm sold. :) Where do we go from here? Firsfron of Ronchester 21:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case you're feeling ~~f**ked off~~ a little frustrated with the whole thing, I think what you're doing has lotsa merit. I have tried standardising headings and subheadings on loads of bird, dino, fungus, some mammal and now some star articles, especially when going to FA. Question is whether it is better done incrementally or all at once, - maybe just a big essay/guideline or writing the 'best' biology article? Funny about usernames, I stuffed up when I joined and didn't mean to stick my first and second names together and cant be arsed doing anything about it now. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		Zen Garden Award for Infinite Patience
		To Samsara for...just doing things which require more patience than what I have on a good day...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soaring birds

Hi Samsara: Having just read your message summarizing the animal photo discussion (a DYK notice got posted after your message, and I didn't see yours until today :P ), I just have one further thing to say re: flight silhouettes. While they'd certainly be useful for non-soaring birds (i.e. swifts, swallows, etc.) in a more general article, I think they'd be less useful for individual species. The difference between flying warblers can help someone with considerable experience ID them to genus, for example, but rarely further than that (without further clues, like location, vocalization, etc.) And, given that experienced bird artists often struggle to represent them well (and I've got scores of field guides that prove that), the chances of getting somebody with a computer mouse to do better is highly unlikely! : ) Of course, that's just my two cents! MeegsC | Talk 17:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Discussion of a FAC you reviewed, here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Frogs in popular culture

I have nominated Frogs in popular culture, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frogs in popular culture (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Phoenix-wiki ^{talk · contribs} 17:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

happy Mango season

'TIS MANGO SEASON....
Have a shlice of mango cheek...well, I am up to my armpits in the things. Yuletide means lots and lots of mangos, as well as turkey and ham and ice-cream and pressies. Were on special so I bought 3 crates for AU$20 and now I have both crispers in the refrigerator full and even with everyone eating two of the ##$@& things every mealtime... I am a bit mangoed out so I thought I'd spread the goodwill around....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent Design - unprotection?

Hi,

I think Intelligent design could be unprotected now - in Talk:Intelligent design#The little edit war User:Ed Poor says, "I undid one reversion User:dave souza made, because he didn't give a good reason. He repeated his reversion, this time with a good reason, and that was the end of it." This appears to be a declaration from Ed Poor that he has no problem with the version of the article proposed by the other participant in the low-level edit war, Dave Souza, which as far as I can tell means there is now no edit war. Ed Poor requested unprotection on WP:RPP and the closing admin suggested that this request should be made of you first; but as far as I can see no-one has done so.

Thanks, TSP (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals/mammal articles by size

useful? 'nuff said..cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon

I'll regard it as a real alternative when the image is actually put up for display. You Supported that nom of Fir's already, you Oppose mine. Doesn't worry me, but I don't know if there's a lot of point dredging up 2yo noms on which to base your opposes (and noms that you may or may not have been actually originally referring to anyway).
As I've already pointed out, mine has features that none of Fir's have had, i.e., the way it displays the spikes and beard on an adult. Personally I like the composition on mine; others may prefer Fir's. Some may prefer none of them. --jjron (talk) 07:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sea otter FAC

Wow, thanks for nominating it! I had been planning to do some more work on it and then nominate it myself. What's happening now is less orderly but way more fun and a great motivator. Cheers, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 17:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GIMP edit

Hi! Your recent edit to the GIMP article seems to have reverted some of the latest additions ([1]). I am not entirely sure what it was meant to do so I haven't done anything about it. Zarniwoot (talk) 01:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Threads		Dates	Archive
1 to	39	September 2003 to February 20 2006	0
40 to	82	February 20 2006 to March 19 2006	1
83 to	101	up to and all of May 2006	2
102 to	121	June 2006	3
122 to	169	July 2006	4
170 to	203	1 to August 19 2006	5
204 to	234	19 August to 30 September 2006	6
235 to	266	October 2006	7
267 to	305	November 2006	8
			9
			10
Current			11

Archives