User talk:Casliber

{| cellpadding="10" cellspacing="8" style="width: 100%; background-color: #b1c8ff; border: 1px solid #6587d1; vertical-align: top; border-radius: 8px; -moz-border-radius: 8px; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -moz-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -webkit-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" 
 * style="background-color: #ccddff; border-width: 1px 4px 4px 1px; border-style: solid; border-color: #6587d1; vertical-align: top; border-radius: 8px; -moz-border-radius: 8px; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -moz-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -webkit-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" |

Nomenclature of fungi
Hey there. I recently stumbled across an issue of Nova Hedwigia Beheift titled "the genera of fungi" (or was it agaricaceae?). It's filled to the brink with mind-numbing nomenclatural discussions of all the genera ever described (I think, anyway). Would it be any use if I looked up the specific ref or any specific genera? Circeus 00:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That would be friggin' trés bién. The first one that would be absolutely great to get a clarification on is Agaricus which was called Psalliota in many texts fro many years and I've been mystified as to why. Other articles I intend cleaning up are Amanita muscaria, which is the one I intended taking to FA first but it just didn't come together well, Gyromitra esculenta as a future FA, Agaricus bisporus as a future FA, and cleaning up the destroying angels – Amanita virosa, Amanita bisporiga and Amanita verna. Boletus edulis would be a good one to check too. let me know if anything interesting pops up. I'll see ifd I can think of any other taxonomic quagmires later today. Work just got real busy :( cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 02:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Generally, that's pretty arcane and only relevant to genus articles, or species that were tightly involving in defining them (for example, there seems to be an odd debate over the multiple type species for Amanita). I'll look up Agaricus, Amanita (since A. muscaria's the current type) and Psalliota. I'll also dig up the ref so you can look it up yourself, with any chance. Circeus 04:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool, keen to see what pops up. Cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 05:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I only quickly thumbed through it and noted the full ref because I forgot about it until the last minute. Psalliota looks like a classic synonym case. It shares the same type with Agaricus, and might be older. Circeus 01:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Weird! I thought Linnaeus was calling all sorts of things Agaricus so I wonder how it could predate that really....anyway I am curious.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, First thing I have to say is... Damn, 18th–19th century taxonomy and nomenclature of fungi is a right mess. Whose bright idea was it to give fungi 3 starting dates in the ICBN???

LOTS of "per" in citation here. See


 * On Agaricus
 * Etym.: Possibly "from Agarica of Sarmatica, a district of Russia" (!). Note also Greek ἀ γαρικ όν "a sort of tree fungus" (There's been an Agaricon Adans. genus, treated by Donk in Persoonia 1:180)


 * Donk says Linnaeus' name is devalidated (so that the proper author citation apparently is "L. per Fr., 1821") because Agaricus was not linked to Tournefort's name (Linnaeus places both Agaricus Dill. and Amanita Dill. in synonymy), but truely a replacement for Amanita Dill., which would require that A. quercinus, not A. campestris be the type. This question compounded by the fact that Fries himself used Agaricus roughly in Linnaeus' sense (which leads to issues with Amanita), and that A. campestris was eventually excluded from Agaricus by Karsten and was apparently in Lepiota at the time Donk wrote this, commenting that a type conservation might become necessary.


 * All proposals to conserve Agaricus against Psalliota or vice versa have so far been considered superfluous.


 * On Lepiota
 * Etym. Probably greek λεπις, "scale"
 * Basionym is Agaricus sect. Lepiota Pers. 1797, devalidated by later starting date, so the citation is (Pers.) per S.F.Gray. It was only described, without species, and covered an earlier mentioned, but unnamed group of ringed, non-volvate species, regardless of spore color. Fries restricted the genus to white-spored species, and made into a tribe, which was, like Amanita repeatedly raised to genus rank.


 * The type is unclear. L. procera is considered the type (by Earle, 1909). Agaricus columbrinus (L. clypeolarus) was also suggested (by Singer, 1946) to avoid the many combination involved otherwise in splitting Macrolepiota, which include L. procera. Since both species had been placed into different genera prior to their selection (in Leucocoprinus and Mastocephalus respectively), Donk observes that a conservation will probably be needed, expressing support for Singer's emendation.


 * On Psalliota
 * Etym.: ψάλιον, "ring"
 * Psalliota was first published by Fries (1821) as trib. Psalliota. The type is Agaricus campestris (widely accepted, except by Earle, who proposed A. cretaceus). Kummer (not Quélet, who merely excluded Stropharia) was the first to elevate the tribe to a genus. Basically, Psalliota was the tribe containing the type of Agaricus, so when separated, it should have caused the rest of the genus to be renamed, not what happened. It seems to be currently not considered valid, or a junior homotypic synonym, anyway the explanation is that it was raised by (in retrospect) erroneously maintaining the tribe name.


 * On Amanita
 * Etym.: Possibly from Amanon,a mountain in Cilicia.

A first incarnation from Tentamen dispositionis methodicae Fungorum 65. 1797 is cited as devalidated: "Introduced to cover three groups already previously distinguished by Persoon (in [...] Tent. 18. 1797) under Agaricus L., but at that time not named. It is worth stressing that [The species now known as Amanita caesarea] was not mentioned."


 * With Agaricus L. in use, Amanita was a nomen nudum per modern standard, so Persoon gave it a new life unrelated to its previous incarnations, and that is finally published after a starting date by Hooker (the citation is Pers. per Hook., 1821). He reuses Withering's 1801 definition (A botanical arrangement of British plants, 4th ed.). "The name Amnita has been considered validly published on different occasions, depending on various considerations." Proposed types include (given as Amanita. Sometimes they were selected as Agarici):
 * A. livida Pers. (By Earle, in 1909). Had been excluded in Vaginata or Amanitopsis and could not be chosen.
 * A. muscaria Pers. (By Clemens & Shear, 1931) for the genus (1801) from Synopsis fungorum, was generally transferred to the one from Hooker's Flora of Scotland, which is currently considered the valid publication of Amanita (or was in the 50s).
 * A. phalloides (by Singer, 1936) for the 1801 genus.
 * A.bulbosa (by Singer & Smith, 1946) for Gray's republication. This is incorrect as Gray's A. bulbosa is a synonym of A. citrina. Some authors consider Gray to be the first valid republisher.
 * A. caeserea (by Gilbert, 1940). Troublesome because not known personally to Persoon or Fries.

Donk concludes the earliest valid type is A. muscaria, the species in Hooker, adding that he'd personally favor A. citrina.


 * The name has been republished three times in 1821: in Hooker, Roques and Gray (in that order). Roques maintained Persoon's circumscription, including Amanitopsis and Volvaria. Gray excluded Amanitopsis and Volvariella into Vaginata. Right after, Fries reset the name by reducing the genus to a tribe of Agaricus, minus pink-spored Volvariella. This tribe became a subgenus, than genus via various authors, Quélet, altough not the first, often being attributed the change. Sometimes it was used in a Persoonian sense (whether that is a correct use according to ICBN is not clear to me).


 * Homonyms of Amanita Pers. are Amanita adans. (1763, devalidated) and Amanita (Dill) Rafin. (1830)


 * On Boletus
 * Not including (Not in Agaricaceae, sorry).

Phew! Circeus 18:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope you intend to clean that prose ASAP? It's definitely not article-worthy as is. Circeus 01:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm working on it. Got distracted this morning...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Pork
LOL, I love your sense of humour. Maimonedes is a good reference. The reality is that Islam takes food restrictions from Judaism; and Christianity doesn't have any restriction (courtesy of three references in the New Testament). The reason why pork should be restricted (along with many other things) is not given explicitly in the Hebrew Bible, hence Bible commentators have been offering guesses since ancient times. My own favourite, however, is Mary Douglas, wife of Louis Leakey, daughter of a Lutheran pastor. Her theory is excellent, based on her cultural anthropological observations, with a decent feel for how Biblical text works. It's rather an abstract theory though. Anyway, I'll see if I can manage a literature review of dietry restrictions in the ANE, especially if there's anything explicit about pork. Don't think I'll find a reference for "why" the pork taboo is in place, though, if it's documented, I'd have read about that in commentaries. Perhaps a clay tablet with the answer has been destroyed in only the last few years during the "troubles" in Iraq. :( Alastair Haines (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This is the great thing about uncertainty. Lacking an answer, the reports of Maimonides, Mary Douglas and the other guy mentioned are fascinating.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Scotish pork taboo is a remarkable article! Thanks for that, lol. Alastair Haines (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Spotted this. I'll look for a ref to the Maimonides comment. The normal teaching is that pork is no more or less offensive to Jews than any other forbidden meat (dog, horse etc) or forbidden part of kosher animal (blood, Gid Hanasheh etc). The pig (NB pig, not pork – an important distinction which is relevant for the Maimonides comment too, I note) is "singled out" because it alone of the animals that have one of the two "signs" (it has split hooves but doesn't chew the cud) lies down with its legs sticking out. Most quarapeds have their legs folded under them. There's a midrashic lesson to be learned there, apparently, that the pig is immodestly and falsely proclaiming its religious cleanliness, when it is not. Anyway, that said, I'll look into the M comment – he was quite ahead of his time in terms of medical knowledge (check his biog). And NB my OR/POV antennae buzzed when I read that little section. --Dweller (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Someone has tagged the Religious restrictions on the consumption of pork for OR, though the talk page seems to indicate it is for a different reason....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm... makes me more dubious, but I'll check. btw... I'm not Alastair! --Dweller (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Have found good stuff, including online version of Maimonides text. I'll dump it here for you to use as you wish.

I maintain that the food which is forbidden by the Law is unwholesome. There is nothing among the forbidden kinds of food whose injurious character is doubted, except pork (Lev. xi. 7), and fat (ibid. vii. 23). But also in these cases the doubt is not justified. For pork contains more moisture than necessary [for human food], and too much of superfluous matter. The principal reason why the Law forbids swine's flesh is to be found in the circumstance that its habits and its food are very dirty and loathsome. It has already been pointed out how emphatically the Law enjoins the removal of the sight of loathsome objects, even in the field and in the camp; how much more objectionable is such a sight in towns. But if it were allowed to eat swine's flesh, the streets and houses would be more dirty than any cesspool, as may be seen at present in the country of the Franks.

So, Maimonides argues "pork contains more moisture than necessary [for human food], and too much of superfluous matter", whatever that means! More importantly, the "principal reason" is that if you keep pigs, you end up with a dirty and unhealthy environment. Important note: Maimonides was writing from Islamic Egypt at the time, which is why he mentions "as may be seen at present in the country of the Franks." (ie France)

The comments about the pig's habit of lying with its legs outstretched come from Midrash Vayikra Rabba (ch 13) where it is mentioned as part of an elaborate metaphor, but not in connection with any reason for particularly abhorring the creature.

Hope that helps. --Dweller (talk) 09:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Bract pattern
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 Banksia 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, and both dextral and sinistral spiral."

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 B. menziesii 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. 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.

I thought maybe B. menziesii was an exception to a general rule, but you can see the same diamond grid, though not as clearly, in File:Banksia serrata4.jpg, and I reckon (but am not certain) I can see it in my B. attenuata cone. And in File:Banksia prionotes mature cone.jpg too. What the heck is going on?

(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 Wikipedia. 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 B. menziesii cone. But it isn't going to work if the diagram shows a rectangular grid and the text has to say it is hexagonal.)

Hesperian 13:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 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 archaeocarpa and attenuata 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....Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Update: 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 Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Dipsacus fullonum Just passing through. I am not an expert with flora but I do take photos now and again. Does this image from my personal collection help or hinder your discussion? I see diamonds --Senra (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 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....Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Question


I note that the last six images to be posted on your talk page were posted by me. I'm not sure whether to apologise....

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?

Hesperian 01:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 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 menziesii 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. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 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. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Having found nothing in George, I've been reading Douglas's stuff on ontogeny of Proteaceae flowers, and found nothing there either. 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 explain everything except for the white tip. Hesperian 10:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

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.

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 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.

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 a developed flower spike.

As evidence for this hypothesis I offer the following observations:
 * 1) 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;
 * 2) "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.

Hesperian 05:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting – Gah! Forgot to ring Alex – evening is a crazy time with little availability for me, but will see what I can do. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Not OR any more. Look at the picture of "Banksia flower bud seen in profile" here: clear evidence of the common and floral bracts forming one of those little furry upside-down pyramids, with the flower arising from it. Hesperian 03:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * On a tangential point, the first image would most likely pass FPC if it ever finds a home that is appropriate. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, okay, hopefully Hesperian will see this thread. :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 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. :-) Hesperian 23:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Banksia menziesii with persistent florets
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 B. menziesii 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? Hesperian 04:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm..interesting. I have not ever noticed a menziesii like this, but not to say it can't happen. Might it be a menziesii/prionotes 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...Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * prionotes crossed my mind at first, but the bark is that of menziesii, and nothing like the distinctive prionotes bark. And the flower spikes lack the woolliness of old prionotes florets. 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 prionotes (which it isn't), then we've extended the known range of that species 10km south. Likewise, a hybrid means there's a prionotes population nearby, so it amounts to the same thing. Hesperian 05:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Banksiamyces again
I finally made it to the library and got a hold of the article 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 (macrocarpus, katerinae, toomanis), 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? Sasata (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Berkeley & Broome (1887) is online at http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/13683 — see page 217. There is a picture at Plate 29 figure 18. Hesperian 02:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a nice image on plate 29 there. They call it Tympanis toomanis on page 224 decription of plate. How do we capture that image and replicate it on commons? Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Like this. Hesperian 03:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * On page 222, they talk about finding it on a banksia cone near the Tooma River in southern NSW, which leaves me thinking it is a cone of Banksia marginata although they do not state this (OR alert ++++). Funny looking marginata cone but marginata is a hugely variable species....Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Check your email; I've sent you a copy of Beaton (1982), where they do state that the cone is B. marginata. (You guys should have asked me first; I could have saved Sasata a walk to the library.) Hesperian 03:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * @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, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * 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 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. Sasata (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The resolution is good. I guess you were looking at it at 25%. Try zooming in. Hesperian 03:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 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 Banksiamyces on Banksia." Victorian Naturalist (South Yarra) 110 (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 B. maccannii. Sasata (talk) 07:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I can probably get Vic Naturalist at UNSW Library next tuesday or friday (slim chance on weekend). Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * When you get to Victorian Naturalist, you'll also want to grab Hesperian 08:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * I'll have easy access to Beaton (1984) on Monday. No access to Victorian Naturalist. Hesperian 08:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 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. Hesperian 04:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see any email link on your user page... I can wait until Cas forward a copy. Thanks kindly Sasata (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess you've never noticed the "Email this user" link in the sidebar toolbox.... Hesperian 23:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ! Wouldya look at that... That's embarrassing! Now excuse me while I go give eyewitness testimony in a murder trial. Sasata (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hang on a sec, will send. Also, will be near the library again for Vic Naturalist. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hahaha. Fantastic. I just realised I never uplaoded a funny photo I took in WA a few years ago. I need to double check. Banksia violacea 14 orig.JPG'' had these dark objects on it which might be a fungus as they certainly weren't on any other cones I saw about the place.]] Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

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 SatuSuro 01:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Taking pity on poor Cas, whose Banksia books are still packed up in boxes:

From Collins, Collins and George (2008), page 47, first paragraph of a section entitled "Fungi and lichens":

"Many kinds of fungi are associated with Banksias. There is even a genus of fungi named for their association with these plants—Banksiamyces. The first species of these was recognised in the 1880s and placed in the genus Tympanis, then in the 1950s transferred to the genus Encoelia. Further collections and research led to the description of the genus Banksiamyces by Beaton and Weste in 1982, with two further species. Six taxa are now recognised, so far known from 13 species of Banksia (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 unk[n]own but it seems unlikely that they are responsible for degradation of the seeds."

At the bottom of the page there is a photo of Banksiamyces on B. lemanniana. They look like little light grey maggots on the follicles. Based on the photo and textual description, I would suggest that the B. violacea photo doesn't show this genus. Hesperian 11:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 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 Banksiamyces. I guess I should reserve judgment until I get more info. Sasata (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 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? Sasata (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Anything else to add to this article? Shall we put it up for GAN? Sasata (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah put it up, there might be some bits and pieces. I'll take a look. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Any Banksia experts you're chums with that might be able to give a confirmation on your putative Banksiamyces photo? Sasata (talk) 05:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * damn, I meant to contact Tom May about it (who has been helpful before). Will dig up his email and see what he says. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Abraham Halpern
You may want to have a look there as well. Appears to have been improved by a Szasz fan. I've read diagonally this article, but even that doesn't seem to support the light in which the Halpern-Szasz issue is presented in Wikipedia. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Just go back from a weekend break with no innernet..now where was I.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Aboriginal Astronomy
Hi Casliber – thanks for your note. Yes there's quite a bit more out there which Duane Hamacher and I are slowly trying to get written up. You can find some more stuff on www.emudreaming.com and you may find some papers you havent come across on http://www.atnf.csiro.au/people/rnorris/papers/papers.htm

Have fun! RayNorris (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Great! I'll have a look and if I find anything specific to nag you on...I will :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Orange-bellied Parrot
Neophema99 (talk) 07:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC) Hi. I would like to open for discussion the format of the entry for 'Orange-bellied Parrot'. As news occurs in the recovery program for this species, the limitations of the current format of the Wikipedia entry become more obvious. The heading, 'Conservation Status' should, I believe, be reserved for the actual conservation status in Australia, and in the three states, SA, Tasmania and Victoria. What follows after that, but still under that heading, at present, is a running commentary of events since about 2010. This is not acceptable. I propose another heading be inserted, 'Recovery Program' or similar. In it, a short history of the OBP recovery program could be given – since 1980 or so – and then, new events could be smoothly inserted as they happen. What do others think? The Wikipedia entry is an important first port of call for many people interested in this bird. We owe it to them, and to history, to provide a better entry.

Neophema99 (talk) 07:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Will take a look. sounds good – helps with seamless updating and no doubt there is a lot of info that could be added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

got any advice for writing a constellation FA?
Thinking of diversifying and trying Corona B. Double sharp (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's easier than stars as there is less hardcore physics involved, but trickier as you have to make the material not "listy", which it sort of is by very nature. Smaller constellations are easier as there is less material to list generally. Star guide books, alot of which are on google, are good for general overview, how to find things, what's next to what etc. but alot of their factual info (distance/luminosity) is outdated. I have even suspected this in newer reprints/editions where new material is coming out. SIMBAD is a godsend and makes finding other material easy. I was using it as a ref itself but probably better to use the refs it cites. Overall I find astronomy articles more challenging than biology ones – trickeir to make engaging. We can collaborate on CrB if you like as I did plan on taking it All the Way at some point and then having it as a double mainpage with CrA. Collaborating is good as it makes for less work in some ways – each of us can copyeidt the other etc. 20:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Just popping in during some of the rare free time I have at the moment to say that the hardest part of the constellation articles is figuring out exactly what objects to write about, since there is generally quite a bit of discretion in whether or not something should be in the article. I generally try to write about all stars brighter than magnitude 5.0, and the most-studied astronomical objects within the constellation, as well as a few other things such as extremes (e.g. R136a1) and unusual objects. One tip to find notable stars, I've found, is this SIMBAD query, which lists all Bayer, Flamsteed, and variable stars in each constellation by number of refs. Of course further research is necessary for other stars without said designations, but it's a good start. I would help, but I don't anticipate having much free time at all until at least December. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow! Great idea/find! That really helps. Agree with what you've said. I think it is good to get these in order as it also highlights what other articles are underdone or incorrect etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup the small size was part of the reason I chose CrB (it's not the only reason though :-P). I'm cool with a collaboration. ST11's suggestions, as always, make a lot of sense. Going to read through some constellation FAs to get an idea of what to write – not least CrA... Double sharp (talk) 02:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * , I have started buffing with this one. Just arting with the brighter stars – SIMBAD is best place to start and then chasing refs. Not sure how much you know about them (figuring distance from parallax etc...) so just ask away..or start on deep sky objects and I'll continue with stars (??) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Carcinoma in situ
The carcinoma in situ page has been updated and it explains the different views that sometimes carcinoma in situ is seen as a cancer and sometimes it is not. You will probably remember earlier this year that you supported changing my use of the term "invasive cancer" to "cancer". The expression "invasive cancer" is used frequently in books particularly when talking about cancer of the cervix and in my opinion using the term "invasive cancer" can improve clarity. What do you think of the explanations in the carcinoma in situ article? Snowman (talk) 13:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As it reads right now, which ones are you thinking should have invasive added to them? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I have phrased it badly above, but you seem to have understood me. I should have said that you did not support my use of "invasive cancer" and you preferred the use of "cancer" instead. Actually, to me, it is not as simple as just inserting the word "invasive". Back then, I saw a better phrase in a reference and I thought about using it, because I thought that it would be accurate, readable, and I hoped keep everyone happy; however, the situation become unnecessarily tense and I felt like I was walking on eggs (and you know what that means). I did not get around to developing the article any further nor mentioning the "magical" phrase. I will see if I can find the phrase again. I recall that the solution was to use a short phrase in the place of cancer or invasive cancer in the introduction. I am talking in riddles at the present time, because I want to make sure that I can find that phrase again, and that will mean thinking about the introduction again. Snowman (talk) 20:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, let me know what you are thinking of once you get it clear. It is an intriguing question. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I would recommend the amendment belew, because the demarcation between non-cancer and cancer varies according to the literature, as we have seen, and this is made more difficult by a simplified language and vocabulary used to communicate the complex situation to patients. A definition of cancer that includes in-situ cancer is well established, but perhaps the world of the cytologist or histopathologist is a small world, where to say "invasive cancer" is not unusual. This is the current line in the introduction; "Cervical cytology tests can often detect precursors of cervical cancer and enable early successful treatment.". I think that it would be more accurate if it said something like; "The main aim of cervical cytology screening is to detect precursors of cancer and early cervical cancer to enable early successful treatment.". In this new line a full spectrum from viral changes to dysplasia to carcinoma-in-situ to early invasive cancer is included, so the controversy over where to put the non-cancer/cancer line disappears, and the meaning is clear no matter where the reader puts the line in his or her own mind-map. Snowman (talk) 13:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I reworded it like this to make it flow better yet be inclusive and cover all interpretations. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * After some deep thought, I think that your edit is good enough. Snowman (talk) 14:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * What do you think about making a joint nomination with me to take the cervix article to FA review sometime? I would not be planning to edit much of the "History" and "Other animals" sections, because I do not know much about those topics. I am not usually on the nominator's side of the fence, but I would be willing to step into that role here, partly to test the water. Snowman (talk) 13:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it is a good idea – the prerequisites for being a nominator are being reasonably familar with the article and having the ability to address issues raised at FAC. Do you see anything else that needs fixing before listing it at FAC? 02:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh good. I would like to have a long look at the article before FA nomination, and I expect that I will not feel happy with the article as a potential FA nomination for several weeks. There is some content and page organization in the article (as it is now) that I would like to reflect on. The peer review is also worth re-visiting to see what was not achieved there. I will probably attempt to start a few discussions on the article talk page where relevant. Do you have any time frame in mind or any particular schedule of your own to work around? Of course, I would ask you to constructively criticize my work whenever you think that anything can be improved, and I will try to focus on the issue and answer honestly and objectively trying not to be fractious nor stubborn, with a view to learning from my errors. It think that it will work better like that, than keeping quite or not speaking up when you do not agree with your co-nominator. I am saying that because I guessed that you have not felt easy about not supporting your co-nominator in FA reviews previously. Also, as before, please be alert to my writing style, which can sometimes need re-phrasing owing to clumsy grammar, although the content is often unambiguous (to me at least). Apart from that, it could be challenging writing for general readers and even more challenging writing for specialist readers that are unfamiliar with the small world of histopathology. Snowman (talk) 12:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no time scale on this so it sorta takes as long as it takes. The refs need fixing for page numbers. The material is pretty good – only thing from PR left is double checking lymphatic drainage really I thought. Anyway. Posting things step by step on talk page is good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I would have though that the "Function" heading would be about normal function. Surly, putting a barrier in front of the cx is not a normal function of the cervix. Also, oc pills are more about pharmacology and modified functioning of the cervix. Should the "Contraception" heading have its own level-2 heading? This has been discussed before, but it is worth starting another discussion on the talk page about this? Snowman (talk) 21:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that the human altering of function is fine there. I think it is fine as a level 3 heading underneath function Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * When medicines affect function, it is called pharmacology. Snowman (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * In the introduction; "... the cervix is usually between 2 and 3 cm long and roughly round in shape". Change to: ?
 * 1. "... the cervix is cylindrically shaped usually between 2 and 3 cm long and roughly round in cross section".
 * 2. "... the cervix is usually between 2 and 3 cm long and roughly round in in cross section" Snowman (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the first one or something like it – will take a look now. I wonder if the fact it is roughly cylindrical makes saying it's round in cross-section redundant. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Your amendment looks find to me. Snowman (talk) 11:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Should there be more consistency in using {{main| under more of the headings where there is an obvious main article else where? Snowman (talk) 11:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes that sounds like a good idea. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I expect that I will add some when I do some editing there. Snowman (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Re Vaginal portion of cervix. Have you got any ideas on what to do with this article on the portio (or ectocervix)? I do not know why WP Anatomy has so many articles on sub-parts. If relevant, I expect that a formal discussion would be needed to consider a merge. Snowman (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it should be merged. Will post something. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I plan to watch for a while and express an opinion, if needed. Snowman (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It is off to a good start over there. I think that there is nothing on the unreferenced portio page that can be copied over to the cervix page. We could start planing how to present the portio (and its various names) on the cervix page. Snowman (talk) 12:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * In have found what to me looks like a 2003 copyrighted version of File:Cervix dilation sequence.svg, so I have started a deletion discussion on Commons. Commons administrators will now have a look at it. Initially, I left an message with the uploader on Commons to ask a technical question about the image, and I noticed that he is currently blocked for three months, so I did a search for other copies of the cervix dilation image. The image should show the babies head moving down the birth canal as the cervix dilates, but the head looks stuck. The image is on about a dozen or more Wikis, so they might all be removed by a bot in due course. I am not sure if the image needs removing from the Cervix page at this juncture or not, so I wonder what you think about removal from the en Wiki. Snowman (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh dear – I suspect it will have to be removed, though maybe hold for a moment and see if an explanation is forthcoming. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I recently found a photograph of a rare parrot with the wrong copyright and it was deleted from Commons one week after I started the deletion discussion. Snowman (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That sounds in keeping with deletion discussions elsehwere – around 1 week. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Update: Image was deleted this yesterday. Snowman (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The Cervical cancer article has had a lot of work on it since about June, and it is well worth looking at. I expect that we could shorten (or otherwise amend) the section on cervical cancer in the "cervix" article, because the "cervical cancer" article offers a good readable account. Snowman (talk) 12:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * {{ping|Snowmanradio}} I will take a look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Re HPV vaccines. Sometimes, I like to tidy up the linked pages. This article was moved from the singular to the pleural in March 2014. I am aware that there is more than one HPV vaccine, but I would expect this to be on the singular name, unless there something controversial about it that I have missed. Snowman (talk) 12:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * {{ping|Snowmanradio}} yes that is unusual and I think I prefer it at singular. I think it is worth discussing on the talk page. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The "Anatomical abnormalities" section looks like a mixture of acquired and congenital diseases. Could this be organized differently? I nearly did a reorganization, but a little re-organization does not change much, and I suspect that it would be easier to do a bit of a re-write. Also, it may be possible to expand the section with a little about the developmental abnormalities of the female genital tract seen in Cryptophthalmos syndrome, Johanson-Blizzard syndrome, Rokitansky Anomalod, and as less commonly seen in Roberts syndrome and Trisomy 18 syndrome. These diseases are not at the front of my mind, however these are in the index of my rather old second-hand book on human malformation. This is not a small change, so I welcome your opinion. Snowman (talk) 13:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * {{ping|Snowmanradio}} let me take a look. I don't recall it right now and I thought I was happy with it before but will look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have become unexpectedly busy in real life, so I have not had much time for editing the Wiki. I hope that I will be able to contribute with more editing and work on the cervix article again after about two or three months . Snowman (talk) 10:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * {{ping|Snowmanradio}} no worries. I found that I have lost interest in it. My free time (of which I have little) has to be enjoyable and thus something I have real enthusiasm for. I found I did get a bit enthusiastic about this one but comes and goes. More interested in frigatebird and brachychiton rupestris now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Also orange-bellied parrot – very interesting story. I find writing about extinct species makes me sad (I leave them to {{u|FunkMonk}}) but rare ones are ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Apart from manual editing, I was hoping to write a few scripts for fun to do scanning and mass editing tasks on the Wiki this Autumn and Winter, but can not participate in a meaningful way at the present time. I plan to return when I can and I will look to see what you and User FunkMonk are doing then. Incidentally, have you any thoughts on why discussions about anatomy topics tend to be rather brittle? I might ask that question on the WP Anatomy talk page. Snowman (talk) 10:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by 'brittle'? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I will ask open-ended questions instead. Do you have any observations about discussions on anatomy topics? Snowman (talk) 12:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Running a contest (talk page watchers welcome)
Right folks...I can't decide which (long overdue) contest to run again. Putting this out there to see what folks reckon the 'pedia most needs or would be most fun (as without enthusiasm, it won't work). For folks unfamiliar, I try to get a wikigrant so several folks have a chance of winning a $25 (or more) Amazon voucher. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Core contest

 * 1) 99of9 (talk) 03:08, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Vanamonde (Talk) 20:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Stub contest

 * 1) Nessie (talk) 03:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Nosebagbear (talk) 09:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC) (just as a side-note I wouldn't take any voucher but would chuck it back into the pot)
 * 3) SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Guettarda (talk) 12:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) Mcampany (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Golden gnome

 * 1) Nessie (talk) 03:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Loopy30 (talk) 11:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Guettarda (talk) 12:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Mcampany (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Signups open for The Core Contest
The Core Contest—Wikipedia's most exciting contest—will take place this year from April 15 to May 31. The goal: to improve vital or other core articles, with a focus on those in the worst state of disrepair. Editing can be done individually, but in the past groups have also successfully competed. There is £300 of prize money divided among editors who provide the "best additive encyclopedic value". Signups are open now. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24.

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

Largest Reptiles
Hi! Could you please join the discussion concerning with list of largest reptiles where I believe a lot of unreliable sources or twisted context exist. Thanks! RoyalRover (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Ann Romney
Would you be open to unprotection? 162.219.198.189 (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok giving it a go Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah... that went badly. Apologies for wasting your time. 162.219.198.189 (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Not at all, that was enlightening. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Banksia grossa
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 23 June 2023. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Today's featured article/June 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/June 2023. I suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 22:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Thank you for the article, in 2012 your 22nd nomination for featured article of Banksia species! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Today: a woman caught by the iron curtain (improved with SusunW and GRuban), yesterday: the Mass in B minor, heard in concert then, three musical videos are out, and vacation pics. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

WikiCup 2023 May newsletter
The second round of the 2023 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to have scored 60 points to advance into round 3. Our top five scorers in round 2 all included a featured article among their submissions and each scored over 500 points. They were:


 * Iazyges (1040) with three FAs on Byzantine emperors, and lots of bonus points.
 * Unlimitedlead (847), with three FAs on ancient history, one GA and nine reviews.
 * Epicgenius (636), a WikiCup veteran, with one FA on the New Amsterdam Theatre, four GAs and eleven DYKs
 * BennyOnTheLoose (553), a seasoned competitor, with one FA on snooker, six GAs and seven reviews.
 * 🇩🇪 FrB.TG (525), with one FA, a Lady Gaga song and a mass of bonus points.

Other notable performances were put in by Sammi Brie,  Thebiguglyalien,  MyCatIsAChonk,  PCN02WPS, and  AirshipJungleman29.

So far contestants have achieved thirteen featured articles between them, one being a joint effort, and forty-nine good articles. The judges are pleased with the thorough reviews that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
Din oz1  (chat?) 15:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Leicester City F.C.
Leicester City F.C. has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Pavo (constellation) scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Pavo (constellation) article has been scheduled to rerun as today's featured article for July 23, 2023. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page blurb, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/July 23, 2023, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. If you wish to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article, you can do so at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/July 2023.

I suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you today for the article, introduced (in 2013): "Another week another constellation." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:32, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

While today's DYK highlights Santiago on his day, I did my modest share with my story today, describing what I just experienced, pictured. I began the article of the woman in green. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Today Jahrhundertring, and I'm listening to Götterdämmerung from the Bayreuth Festival, close to the scene pictured, - the image (of a woman who can't believe what she has to see) features also on the article talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The Core Contest winners announced
The winners of the 2023 The Core Contest are announced 🎉. We had an amazing set of improvements this year, and the judges (, and ) would like to thank everybody who joined and congratulate the winners.


 * First place goes to for improving  The Holocaust; very core, highly relevant; their work on bringing geographical balance to the article puts the topic in a whole different light. We also commend improvements to sourcing and prose
 * A close second place goes to for improving Education from an unstructured jumble into a well-sourced piece of instruction
 * Third prize goes to for improving  Donatello, a near five-fold expansion with great sourcing and fantastic imagery
 * A tie for fourth place goes to for improving Crime, for a strong improvement in sourcing
 * A tie for fifth place goes to for International law, improved by converting contextless listicles into a proper sourced prose

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

WikiCup 2023 July newsletter
The third round of the 2023 WikiCup has come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round had at least 175 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:


 * Thebiguglyalien, with 919 points from a featured article on Frances Cleveland as well as five good articles and many reviews,
 * Unlimitedlead, with 862 points from a high-scoring featured articles on Henry II of England and numerous reviews,
 * Iazyges, with 560 points from a high-scoring featured article on Tiberius III.

Contestants achieved 11 featured articles, 2 featured lists, 47 good articles, 72 featured or good article reviews, over 100 DYKs and 40 ITN appearances. As always, any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

pavo
Cas Liber, i had two questions regarding this article and the associated blurb. dying (talk) 06:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * both the blurb and the article do not capitalize the 'e' in "super-earth", while the article on the subject, as well as what appears to be the vast majority of articles using the term, do capitalize the 'e'. is there a reason why the article does not conform to what appears to be the current practice on wikipedia?
 * the blurb states that ngc 6752 is the third-brightest globular cluster in the sky, after omega centauri and 47 tucanae, while the article on ngc 6752 states that it is the fourth-brightest globular cluster, and includes messier 22 in its list of brighter globular clusters. should this discrepancy be resolved?  i am not sure how the relative brightness of globular clusters is determined, but if it is based on apparent magnitude, this source states that messier 22 has an apparent magnitude of 5.1, and this one states that ngc 6752 has a magnitude of 5.4.
 * Thanks for being thorough. Sounds like super-Earth should be capitalised and feel free to do so in blurb and article. Re globular clusters, if you have a source listing brightness of clusters feel free to change in article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * done, and .  thanks, Cas Liber!  dying (talk) 22:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Banksia dentata
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 1 September 2023. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Today's featured article/September 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/September 2023. I suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. (also, Secretarybird on 30 September) Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you today for the article, introduced: "I am nominating this for featured article because I think it is on par with the other 23 Banksia featured articles." You were right. - A day rich in music, see? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Today's story is about a great pianist with an unusual career, taking off when he was 50. It's the wedding anniversary of Clara and Robert Schumann, but I was too late with our gift. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you and the team today for Secretarybird, introduced (in 2020): "This article is about an unusual African bird of prey (trying to balance systemic bias in the process too)."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

banksia dentata
Cas Liber, i had three questions regarding this article and the associated blurb. dying (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * both the blurb and article lead mention that the inflorescences appear during "the cooler months", while the article body explains that the spikes appear between november and may. is "the cooler months" an accurate description of those months?  to me, the map of the range of b. dentata shows that the tree grows largely in the tropical zone of continental australia, and my understanding of the weather in this area is that there is a wet season and a dry season, with the temperature being roughly the same throughout the year.  i believe the months between november and may roughly coincide with the wet season, but it doesn't seem to me that there is any appreciable decline in temperature during those months.  if anything, i would argue that the temperature is hotter during the wet season, as seen in the data presented in the articles on darwin and port moresby.
 * it is mentioned in both the blurb and article lead that b. dentata is one of four species collected by banks in 1770. however, the article on banksia enumerates five species that banks collected in 1770: b. serrata, b. integrifolia, b. ericifolia, b. robur, and b. dentata.  it also notes that only the first four of the five were in the first collection; b. dentata was collected during a later point of the voyage.  would it be appropriate to replace the "four" in "four original Banksia species collected" with "five"?
 * my understanding of banksia is that, in general, multiple follicles containing seeds develop on each of the inflorescences. this comports with the sentence in the article lead that addresses the tree's follicles.  however, i am confused about the wording used in the blurb, which appears to state that the inflorescence itself turns into a follicle.  alternatively, if the "which" in the sentence in the blurb refers to the flowers, the blurb seems to suggest that the follicles are separate from the inflorescences.  would it be proper to simply remove the word "into" from the blurb?  i believe one could state that the inflorescences develop into infructescences, but the blurb doesn't seem to be covering this.


 * Okay - (i) great pick up.Baffled how that got through and fixed now (ii) fiddly - turns out that they collected 5 species and not 4. There was a single specimen of Banksia robur collected. Both robur and dentata have large 30cm long leaves, so the hypothesis is that the single robur specimen was overlooked and assumed to be dentata....but I can't find a reference that makes that conclusion right now. So dentata was technically one of the first 4 species collected and described as such (as robur waited another decade) (iii) good pick up. tweaked now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * oh, interesting hypothesis! i couldn't figure out why b. robur was apparently ignored, but if it was conflated with b. dentata at the time, that would certainly explain it.  as b. dentata may be more accurately described as "one of the first 4 species collected and described as such", should the blurb be changed to reflect this?  i would suggest dropping the comma after "1770" and removing "one of the four species" before "published".  (in addition, "in 1770" and "by Sir Joseph Banks" can be transposed to improve parallelism, but such a change is not necessary.)  as the blurb is currently written, i believe it incorrectly asserts that banks collected specimens from only four banksia species at the time.by the way, i am not sure if i am misreading something, but i think you may have meant to include a "not" before "described" in .  dying (talk) 20:17, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * (a) good pick up (b) tweaked blurb Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * looks good. thanks, Cas Liber.  dying (talk) 02:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

WikiCup 2023 September newsletter
The fourth round of the competition has finished, with anyone scoring less than 673 points being eliminated. It was a high scoring round with all but one of the contestants who progressed to the final having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were


 * Epicgenius, with 2173 points topping the scores, gained mainly from a featured article, 38 good articles and 9 DYKs. He was followed by
 * Sammi Brie, with 1575 points, gained mainly from a featured article, 28 good articles and 50 good article reviews. Close behind was
 * Thebiguglyalien, with 1535 points mainly gained from a featured article, 15 good articles, 26 good article reviews and lots of bonus points.

Between them during round 4, contestants achieved 12 featured articles, 3 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 126 good articles, 46 DYK entries, 14 ITN entries, 67 featured article candidate reviews and 147 good article reviews. Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them and within 24 hours of the end of the final. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

I will be standing down as a judge after the end of the contest. I think the Cup encourages productive editors to improve their contributions to Wikipedia and I hope that someone else will step up to take over the running of the Cup. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), and Cwmhiraeth (talk)

Smooth toadfish at TFA
Hi Cas, this is one of yours, promoted at FAC in 2016. I asked Z1720 to pick a few TFA reruns for October, and this was one of his selections. The article seems in good shape to me to run on October 28, and I trust your work, but let me know if you notice that any significant problems have crept in over the years. Btw, in the very unlikely event that I have to pull one of the October TFAs on short notice, this would be my choice for the article to swap in. - Dank (push to talk) 03:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok will look Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you today for the article, introduced then: "I scoured everything I could for info, so gaps reflect gaps in real knowledge."! - I have a singer on he same page ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you today for the article, introduced then: "I scoured everything I could for info, so gaps reflect gaps in real knowledge."! - I have a singer on he same page ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Request for Mentorship for first FAC
Good afternoon Casliber, I was hoping I could request you as a mentor for my first FAC, Hypericum sechmenii. I already asked for input from another editor, who gave me some advice and directed me to Peer Review (where my request languished and an administrator told me to seek a mentor). I just want to make sure I am not missing any MOS requirements, and would like my first trip to FAC to be constructive and have a good chance of success, so I am not deterred from the process in the future. Fritzmann (message me) 18:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies. Been really busy. Will take a look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Masked booby
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 31 December 2023. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Today's featured article/December 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/December 2023. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there by user:dying, who assists the coordinators by making suggestions on the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from two days before the article appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Hygrophoropsis aurantiaca
I assume this is on your watchlist, but... It's recently attracted edits from a few users claiming that the mushroom is edible. I've reverted to be on the safe side, but it may warrant a closer look. Perhaps 'disputed' would be a fair description, though perhaps nothing needs to be changed. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ok will take a look Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Actually an interesting read and valid addition Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Great; glad there's been a positive result. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

WikiCup 2023 November newsletter
The WikiCup is a marathon rather than a sprint and all those reaching the final round have been involved in the competition for the last ten months, improving Wikipedia vastly during the process. After all this hard work, BeanieFan11 has emerged as the 2023 winner and the WikiCup Champion. The finalists this year were:-


 * BeanieFan11 with 2582 points
 * Thebiguglyalien with 1615 points
 * Epicgenius with 1518 points
 * MyCatIsAChonk with 1012 points
 * BennyOnTheLoose with 974 points
 * AirshipJungleman29 with 673 points
 * Sammi Brie with 520 points
 * Unlimitedlead with 5 points

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether they made it to the final round or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the competition, some of whom did very well. Wikipedia has benefitted greatly from the quality creations, expansions and improvements made, and the numerous reviews performed. All those who reached the final round will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. Awards will be handed out in the next few days.


 * Unlimitedlead wins the featured article prize, for 7 FAs in total including 3 in round 2.
 * MyCatIsAChonk wins the featured list prize, for 5 FLs in total.
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski wins the featured topic prize, for a 6-article featured topic in round 4.
 * MyCatIsAChonk wins the featured picture prize, for 6 FPs in total.
 * BeanieFan11 wins the good article prize, for 75 GAs in total, including 61 in the final round.
 * Epicgenius wins the good topic prize, for a 41-article good topic in the final round.
 * LunaEatsTuna wins the GA reviewer prize, for 70 GA reviews in round 1.
 * MyCatIsAChonk wins the FA reviewer prize, for 66 FA reviews in the final round.
 * Epicgenius wins the DYK prize, for 49 did you know articles in total.
 * 🇺🇦 Muboshgu wins the ITN prize, for 46 in the news articles in total.

The WikiCup has run every year since 2007. With the 2023 contest now concluded, I will be standing down as a judge due to real life commitments, so I hope that another editor will take over running the competition. Please get in touch if you are interested. Next year's competition will hopefully begin on 1 January 2024. You are invited to sign up to participate in the contest; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors. It only remains to congratulate our worthy winners once again and thank all participants for their involvement! (If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.) Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Note to self
Look at this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Roy Rosenfeld


A tag has been placed on Roy Rosenfeld, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
 * It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.
 * It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. REDACTED403 (talk) 13:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Refideas editnotice
Letting you know that the edit notice is now live - if you edit any article with refideas listed on the talk page, you will get the notification. :) You can click "edit" on Call of Cthulhu (role-playing game) to see it in action, if you have not already seen it. :) BOZ (talk) 18:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Pre-FA review?
Hi Cas: I'm wondering if I can get you to cast your seasoned eye over lichen growth forms. I'm going to try for FA, and wonder if you – as someone not particularly interested in lichens – find any of it hard to understand or lacking in information. Any comments much appreciated! MeegsC (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Happy to/A pleasure. But busy so ping me if you haven't seen me there in 3 days or so. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

WT:Featured article candidates/Rock parrot/archive1
Hi Cas. Edits and comments on the blurb are welcome. I'm thinking of running this at TFA on January 11; does that work for you? It hasn't changed much since your edits in 2019, and Jim has recently looked at it, so I think we're in good shape. - Dank (push to talk) 18:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Nota
This article is just crying out for your expertise. Enjoy! Drmies (talk) 02:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh dear...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I assume you're on your way to the library: good! Thanks! Drmies (talk) 13:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

FAC request
Hi Cas, I hope that things are going well for you. While I am not keen to add to your list of unsolicited requests, Teloschistaceae is at FAC and could do with both another review and a look through by a knowledgeable editor. If you felt up to providing either of those, it would be much appreciated. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Ooo, interesting. I'll take a look Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Time to unprotect Ivy League?
Over a decade ago, you semiprotected Ivy League. Can you please remove that protection so we can see if it's still necessary? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 03:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, let's see how this goes. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings!
Happy Holidays text.png

Merry Christmas!


BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. Feel free to take a "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" if you prefer. :) BOZ (talk) 00:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

TFA
Thank you today for Masked booby, "about another sulid". Thank you also for another year of great contributions, and best wishes for 2024! For me, 2023 was a year of stories, and a click on "music" will give you the latest music and memories, promised. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year

 * Heh thanks - and ditto! To everyone who has posted here in this festive season! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2024 WikiCup!
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2024 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close on 31 January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are:, , and. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

TFA
Thank you today for Rock parrot, "about a cute little parrot that has not been much-studied...meaning it is a shorter article than many bird articles"! 

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy New Year

2024

-- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I have a DYK, but my story would be different, about Figaro, - this Figaro. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

On the Main page: the person who made the pictured festival possible --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Today a friend's birthday, with related music and new vacation pics --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Mentor request
Hi,

seeing that you're the only one of the mentors listed at WP:FAM naming astronomy among his interests, I would like to request mentoring from you before an FA nomination of Near-Earth object. For some background: I achieved GA for that article back in 2018, and have recently restored it to that level. I have attempted to bring an article to FA once (in a completely different field: railways), but aborted it for some reason - after lots of work based on helpful reviews, which taught me about some finer points of the English language and citation templates -, and it was 13 years ago, so I barely remember it & standards probably changed a lot since.Rontombontom (talk) 17:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Heh, I'll take a look. Cool article BTW. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If you have the time, could you please take another look at the article, and tell it it's now ready for FA nomination? Over the past two weeks, I have re-ordered the history, impacts & close approaches sections in a sequence that seems logical, trimmed some sections covered in greater detail in linked articles, and changed access/archive date format after all. Rontombontom (talk) 09:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 February newsletter
The 2024 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with 135 participants. This is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2017.

Our current leader is newcomer, who has one FA on John Littlejohn (preacher) and 10 GAs and 12 DYKs mostly on New Zealand coinage and Inuit figures. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:


 * , with one FA on Hö'elün, two GAs on Mongolia-related articles, and two DYKs;
 * , with one FA on Doom (2016 video game), one GA on Boundary Fire (2017), and 11 reviews;
 * , with one FA on Holidays (Meghan Trainor song), a nine-article FT on 30 (album), and two DYKs;
 * , with one FA on OneShot and one DYK;
 * , with five GAs and five DYKs on television and radio stations;
 * and, both with one FA and one DYK each.

As a reminder, competitors may submit work for the first round until 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February, and the second round starts 1 March. Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round; currently, competitors need at least 15 points to progress. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (,, and ) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on Haborodelphis
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Haborodelphis, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Casliber&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=&preloadparams%5b%5d=1208136494 report it to my operator]. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haborodelphis&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1208136494%7CHaborodelphis%5D%5D Ask for help])

Beer
I obviously owe you one. Thanks! 86.177.202.213 (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 March newsletter
The first round of the 2024 WikiCup ended at 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February. Everyone with at least 30 points moved on to Round 2, the highest number of points required to advance to the second round since 2014. Due to a six-way tie for the 64th-place spot, 67 contestants have qualified for Round 2.

The following scorers in Round 1 all scored more than 300 points:


 * , who has 916 points mostly from one FA on John Littlejohn (preacher), 15 GAs, and 16 DYKs on a variety of topics including New Zealand coinage and Inuit figures, in addition to seven reviews
 * , who has 790 points from two FAs on Felix M. Warburg House and Doom (2016 video game), two GAs, one DYK, and 11 reviews
 * , who has 580 points from one FA on Hö'elün, two GAs on Mongolia-related articles, two DYKs, and five reviews
 * , who has 420 points mostly from nine GAs and seven DYKs on television and radio stations
 * , who has 351 points from one FA on Holidays (Meghan Trainor song), a nine-article FT on 30 (album), and three DYKs
 * , who has 345 points from one FA on OneShot, one DYK and two reviews

In this newsletter, the judges would like to pay a special tribute to, who unfortunately passed away this February. At the time of his death, he was the second-highest-scoring competitor. Outside the WikiCup, he had eight other featured articles, five A-class articles, eight other good articles, and two Four Awards. Vami also wrote an essay on completionism, a philosophy in which he deeply believed. If you can, please join us in honoring his memory by improving one of the articles on his to-do list.

Remember that any content promoted after 27 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:


 * Proposal 2, initiated by, provides for the addition of a text box at Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
 * Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by and, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
 * Proposal 5, initiated by, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
 * Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
 * Proposal 7, initiated by, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
 * Proposal 9b, initiated by, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
 * Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by, , and , respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
 * Proposal 13, initiated by, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
 * Proposal 14, initiated by, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
 * Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by and, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
 * Proposal 16e, initiated by, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
 * Proposal 17, initiated by, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
 * Proposal 18, initiated by, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
 * Proposal 24, initiated by, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
 * Proposal 25, initiated by, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
 * Proposal 27, initiated by, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
 * Proposal 28, initiated by, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Reminder: GA backlog drive
Hello! Just a reminder that, if you have time, you are welcome to join the GA backlog drive; it runs until the end of March. You are receiving this message because you signed up on the drive page but have not yet listed any reviews. We hope to see you there! Either way, happy editing! —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

TCC 2024
Hi Cas, any interest in judging again for TCC this year? Myself and Femke are already interested. If you're too busy, I'm happy to find someone else. Best –  Aza24  (talk)   05:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Happy to do so. Will head over to look at discussion. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Today's featured article/April 10, 2024
I just made a few small edits; feel free to revert or discuss. - Dank (push to talk) 16:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * They're good/improvements. thx. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Signups open for The Core Contest 2024
The Core Contest—Wikipedia's most exciting contest—returns again this year from April 15 to May 31. The goal: to improve vital or other core articles, with a focus on those in the worst state of disrepair. Editing can be done individually, but in the past groups have also successfully competed. There is GB£300 of prize money divided among editors who provide the "best additive encyclopedic value". Signups are open now. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. –  Aza24  (talk)   02:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

Move protection of Gravity Falls (season 2)
In 2015, you had protected the page to temporarily restrict edits to autoconfirmed editors and at the same time, indefinitely restrict moves to sysops only. Is it OK with you to have the move protection to be dropped? – robertsky (talk) 03:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure. Done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

TFA
Thank you today for the beautiful Telopea speciosissima, introduced (in 2010): "What's not to like? The state emblem and a darn fine flower at that....and it's been attracting birds and looking nice and red for over 60 million years....."! - I saw flowers on Madeira, and if you see me just naming one "red flower" and know better, please correct ;) -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

plum tree blossom for Kalevi Kiviniemi in the snow - see my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 April newsletter
We are approaching the end of the 2024 WikiCup's second round, with a little over two weeks remaining. Currently, contestants must score at least 105 points to progress to the third round.

Our current top scorers are as follows:


 * with 642 points, mostly from 11 GAs about radio and television;
 * with 530 points, mostly from two FAs (Well he would, wouldn't he? and Cora Agnes Benneson) and three GAs;
 * with 523 points, mostly from 11 GAs about coinage and history;
 * with 497 points, mostly from a FA about the 2020 season of the soccer club Seattle Sounders FC and two GAs;
 * with 410 points, mostly from a FA about the drink Capri-Sun and three GAs;
 * with 330 points, mostly from a FA about the English botanist Anna Blackburne and a GA.

Competitors may submit work for the second round until the end of 28 April, and the third round starts 1 May. Remember that only competitors with the top 32 scores will make it through to the third round. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs. As a reminder, competitors are strictly prohibited from gaming Wikipedia policies or processes to receive more points.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please read WikiCup/Scoring. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (,, and ) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 May newsletter
The second round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 April. This round was particularly competitive: each of the 32 contestants who advanced to Round 3 scored at least 141 points. This is the highest number of points required to advance to Round 3 since 2014.

The following scorers in Round 2 all scored more than 500 points:
 * with 707 points, mostly from 45 good article nomination reviews and 12 good articless about radio and television;
 * with 600 points, mostly from 12 good articles and 12 did you know nominations about coinage and history;
 * with 552 points, mostly from a featured article about the 2020 Seattle Sounders FC season, three featured lists, and two good articles;
 * with 548 points, mostly from a featured article about the snooker player John Pulman, two featured lists, and one good article;
 * with 530 points, mostly from two featured articles (Well he would, wouldn't he? and Cora Agnes Benneson) and three good articles.

The full scores for Round 2 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 18 featured articles, 22 featured lists, and 186 good articles, 76 in the news credits and at least 200 did you know credits. They have conducted 165 featured article reviews, as well as 399 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 21 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed during Round 3, which starts on 1 May at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (,, and ) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Problematic digital media use and Major depressive disorder
Hello there! I noticed that you removed the Digital media addictions subsection from the Major depressive disorder article that was excerpted the Digital media use and mental health article Depression subsection. Considering that you are a psychiatrist and helped get the Major depressive disorder article up to featured article status (per your user page), I was wondering if you'd be willing to trim that section on the Digital media use and mental health article in accordance with WP:MEDSAY. I've been trying to improve the Digital media use and mental health article (hopefully to featured status if possible), initially by just tracking down systematic reviews and meta-analyses that find associations between the various problematic digital media use categories and recognized mental health disorders by the DSM and ICD and other human factors issues associated with problematic digital media use. Unfortunately, I am not a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist so all I can do is look things up using Google Scholar and often do not have access to entire articles. Another editor has raised issues with the article's layout at its talk page, if you have the time to comment on it. Thanks! -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, difficult topic and I have little time for the stuff I want to prioritise on as is. First thing, some context is good but too much is unnecessary - e.g. this paragraph is just too distant from the topic at hand. Am even unconvinced about whether the remaining paragraph is needed (leaning to not but need to read and think some more) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins
Hi there! Phase I of the Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
 * Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
 * Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
 * Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
 * Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
 * Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
 * Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
 * Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

Nomination of RX Telescopii for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article RX Telescopii is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/RX Telescopii until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Mr. Two Hundred Thousand
jp×g🗯️ 02:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)


 * (Hyuk hyuk hyuk) fair point. I keep trying to reignite the fire...but hard competing as I've returned to being a DnD DM...competing priorities...sigh Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 July newsletter
The third round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 June. As with Round 2, this round was competitive: each of the 16 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 256 points.

The following editors all scored more than 400 points in Round 3:


 * with 1,059 points, mostly from 1 featured article on DeLancey W. Gill, 11 good articles, 18 did you know nominations, and dozens of reviews;
 * with 673 points, mostly from 2 featured articles on Worlds (Porter Robinson album) and I'm God, 5 good articles, and 2 did you know nominations;
 * with 557 points, mostly from 1 featured article on KNXV-TV, 5 good articles, and 8 did you know nominations; and
 * with 415 points, mostly from 1 featured article on Great cuckoo-dove, with a high number of bonus points from that article.

The full scores for round 3 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 28 featured articles, 38 featured lists, 240 good articles, 92 in the news credits, and at least 285 did you know credits. They have conducted 279 featured article reviews, as well as 492 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 22 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 June but before the start of Round 4 can be claimed during Round 4, which starts on 1 July at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (,, and ) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)