User talk:Casliber/Archive 44

Would you be interested
in approaching BeyondBlue with me, and asking them to fund peer review of our better mood disorder articles? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, what did you have in mind them funding? I know Ian Hickie fairly well so contacting them is no problem. I suspect there will be some researchers who'd want to review web-based material to see how well or poorly they are covered..Professor Phil Mitchell I keep meaning to ask about his checklist of what should be in bipolar disorder. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer to leave the review process - its design and management, reviewer selection, etc. - to the most appropriate scholarly society. Which scholarly society would be best suited to that task? The American Psychiatric Association? Or should their equivalents in other Anglophone nations and the WHO also be involved? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I suppose there are a few ways - one is that an expert panel could give pointers on what they think should be in an article and then leave it up to the editing community to institute and then review three months later. Funding anything to edit or review crashes headlong into the paid editing debate so I think that is a minefield as it stands. Critics of psychiatry might have a field day with that one. I will contact some outsiders for ideas tomorrow....brain is beginning to ruminate on this one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking of a more bottom-up approach, where you, me and anyone else who wants to get involved work up those articles to the highest standard we can before submitting them for review, just as we would if we were submitting them to a journal; the content being driven entirely as now by volunteers - though it would be good to get the charities and societies evangelising for Wikipedia within the profession. If the Scientologists want to review our mood disorder articles, they're welcome to.


 * en.Wikipedia can do what it likes with the reviews. We won't have to acknowledge them - though I'll be surprised and disappointed if we don't at least clearly point the reader of an article to its last reviewed version. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hang on, what do you mean "last reviewed version" - is this some idea of a reviewed and current version being different? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep. Sorry - my thinking is evolving. I'm now happy just to have a clickable "Expert reviewed version" button at the top of the current, unreviewed public version. Both versions will have pluses and minuses: the reviewed version will be a WP:RS (provided the review process is of the highest rigor) but only as current as the last review, and the public version will be more up-to-date but not an RS. Is now a good time to ring you? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Now is fine. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep me in the loop on this one please, guys. (Thanks for filing that Arbcom case, Cas, I was just dropping by to see if there was any spillover here ... glad to see there's not.) - Dank (push to talk) 14:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Not here but maybe over there Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's a mess. I've got (rapidly diminishing) diverticulitis at the moment, and I'm really not competent when it comes to Arbcom stuff, but my gut reaction is ... that whole thing couldn't have been pleasant for AGK ... maybe he'll be more willing to talk about it in a week. Personally, I thought the feedback he got from Arbcom members was pretty good. I think you and I agree that it's really the larger issue that's the problem, a feeling of disenfranchisement or inequality among some Wikipedians. I'm got some ideas about some useful RfCs, but I'll wait till I'm well to talk about it. - Dank (push to talk) 01:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Case request declined
The arbitration request involving you (Use of admin tools by AGK) has been declined by the Arbitration Committee

The comments made by arbitrators may be helpful in proceeding further. For the Arbitration Committee,-- S Philbrick (Talk)  01:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Cancer_(constellation)
What's with all the "zodiac" references in this? I was under the impression "zodiac" was strictly for the astrological devisions, and "constellations of the ecliptic" was the correct astronomical term. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That whole constellation page is a mess - the content in the Notable features section looks like it was copypasted from somewhere. Aries (constellation) is Featured, so some sort of way it will end up I suspect. Might be time for an overhaul. "Zodiac" is certainly more accessible to laypeople - I'd mention it at least once but expound more on the ecliptic. I have not done a zodiac constellation yet  - was thinking we should buff Ophiucus the famous 13th sign :)))) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I would definitely help out with Ophiuchus if you were to do it, although it would be a huuuuuge job, on the order of Cygnus. Anyways, it's in the most interesting area of the sky IMO (the Cygnus-Ophiuchus-Sagittarius), so I'd be down for that. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * At least it doesn't have 88 stars with planets.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have a Urania's Mirror illustration for Serpentarius (A.k.a. the old, easily spellable name of Ophiucus.) I should probably actually upload it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That'd be cool...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Serpentarius is up. I had a version of it on my deviantArt when I went off Wikipedia for a bit a while ago; think Wikipedia was using that, so it's not hugely changed. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Trying to get the last 13 images of Urania's Mirror finished. There's going to be lots of new astronomy FPs over the next few weeks, methinks. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Cool....spoilt for choice on what to work on....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

FAC alert
Hi Cas, saw you getting pinged by Colonel Henry for doing an FAC review. If interested, I have a race horse article, Mucho Macho Man up, and Mike Cline has Cutthroat trout. Just saying. Montanabw (talk) 01:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Aah ok. Just working my way up with articles I fancy from older to newer...will get there soon....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Montanabw (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Request that I be unblocked
1) Hi Casliber, excuse me for IP-based block evading on your talkpage, but I've been left with no other way to communicate with my fellow editors. I have asked other administrators to unblock in a manner similar to this, but this time I thought I'd ask a former arbitrator, because maybe he or she would feel less intimidated by hierarchy. That is to say, some administrators have said to me "Arbcom declined to unblock you, so I'm not touching it." The fact that Arbcom declined to lift my block does not transform it into an "Arbcom block." My reading of policy informs me that any administrator may lift my block in accordance with the provisions of WP:UNBLOCK.

2) Similarly, WP:AN/ANI did its group discussion of me in its chaotic style and declined to unblock. This does not mean I am "blocked by WP:AN/ANI." You'll find the fingerprints of various other administrators in my block log, but I still really consider myself as blocked by Timotheus Canens who alleged two years ago that I was in violation of WP:SOCK. By the way please do not read my long block log as if I were granted second chances and offended anew. A lot of that is procedural, or instances where I manage to get unblocked for a short time and my opponents scramble successfully to get me quickly reblocked.

3) The best way for you to overview my case is to read the RFC/U, here: . However this takes about 15 minutes. If you read that, please do read the actual RFC/U, and don't rely overmuch on the opinion commentary, which is dominated by my long-time critics. In other words, several of those leaving negative remarks are not regular RFC/U readers, rather they tracked me there from my talkpage that they've watchlisted in order to criticize me once again in a new venue.

4) I didn't sock. I never socked Wikipedia. I had a single prior account that I abandoned for privacy purposes, never going back. It may have been a strategic error looking back, because it gave Timotheus an excuse to label me sock and claim "illegitimate alternate accounts," but I felt the need to honestly and upfrontly describe that in my very first edit as Colton Cosmic. WP:CLEANSTART explicitly authorizes moving to a sequential account to "avoid harassment" and it's no leap at all to apply that to a privacy-based switch, as in for example the person who decides he or she shouldn't have used his or her real name as username.

5) In my prior account I wasn't prolific by any means, but I did create at least a few articles and substantially contributed to many more. As Colton Cosmic I only had three months before I was blocked, but I at least authored Rain City Superhero Movement. If you consider my case, do not let my critics define me by a singular edit where I criticized Nomoskedasticity. Wormthatturned particularly has sought to distill me down to that single remark. I am not wanting to criticize him behind his back, and he is welcome to read this if he happens to, but I feel he has made a disturbing and peculiar series of both outright misrepresentations and incredibly misleadingly selective portrayals of the editing record to argue his ingrained suspicion that I had a relationship with Nomo. in my prior account.

6) I had no relationship to Nomo. in my prior account. The editing history clearly shows our differences arising organically in this account, for instance Nomo. responded to my query at the BLP noticeboard and then edited Phoenix Jones where I had been editing and Nomo. never had before. It requires a fantastic warping of reality to make Worm's case that I must have had a conflict with Nomo. in my prior account. But he's influencing others to believe this, such as Dheyward who said my "mannerisms" betray a prior familiarity to Nomo.

7) So what was my infamous, out-of-bounds, damning, and Hannibal Lecter-like remark to Nomo.? I said he or she was a provocateur whose Wikipedia activity mainly consisted of tattling on people to WP:AN/ANI with the desire to get them blocked, that this was symptomatic of the worst sort of sniping associated with Usenet in the 1990s, and I asked if he or she had ever actually created anything for Wikipedia. I said it in a mean way. Maybe a civility block for a couple days was warranted?

8) I did slip there, but I had just a day or so earlier read Youreallycan plaintively beseech Nomo. to just leave him alone after two years of wikihounding. Here is part of that: . Nomo. also sarcastically (?) called Youreallycan "darling," and had said the same to me. And then

9) I see Nomo. arguing for his block and I slipped. Nomo. had also reported me at WP:AN/ANI on what I regarded as a flimsy charge of edit-warring. When that report met with no action, Nomo. actually followed up at the closer's talkpage saying he needed to at least issue a warning. Is my belief wholly unfounded and unreasonable then that Nomo regards getting others blocked and warned as a goal and a satisfaction, and that this is in fact the essential nature of his or her participation at Wikipedia? Whatever. I accept it was uncivil to say it like I did. I don't want any relationship with Nomo. It's only because people zero in on that when considering the propriety of my block that makes me discuss him or her.

10) None of the above makes me a sock, so that is why I ask you to unblock me. The RFC/U has furnished the requisite community discussion to inform your decision, should it be faulted at WP:AN/ANI (and rest assured any unblock will be). They just won't be able to say the question wasn't talked up sufficiently. Please do not hold my unblock hostage to the impossible concept of getting "consensus for unblocking" at WP:AN/ANI. I am not *blocked* by any consensus, I am blocked by Timotheus and his block button. WP:UNBLOCK says you can reverse that on your own consideration and authority. Thank you for reading. This is Colton Cosmic. 10:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Who were you before you were Colton Cosmic? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * 1) I will not name the account because of privacy concerns. However it was never sanctioned, banned, blocked, nor even warned. I was mainly a content editor. I did not even know what Arbcom or WP:AN/ANI were. I made the mistake of disclosing the account to Jimbo when he eagerly exchanged three emails with me one morning several months ago. He promised me strict confidentiality and a favorable handling of my case if the account checked out. As far as I know he has honored the confidentiality part but he didn't favorably handle my case. It is true though that he did not specifically promise to unblock me, but he gave me firm cause to believe I'd get better treatment from him than I did.


 * 2) He just stopped responding. It seems he just wanted to satisfy his curiosity, and after that I was of no interest to him. A month went by and he ignored my probably four follow-up "have you had a chance to consider my case yet" emails. With no other option I then IP block-evaded at his talkpage to press him on it. He said he'd "get back to [me] by the end of the week" but didn't. The next Tuesday he finally responded via email saying that I must hand over the prior account to Arbcom before he would help me. I said "that was not our arrangement." I said "why do you dismiss my privacy concerns?" Silence. The account was in excellent standing as I said. If he had concerns on some other aspect of it, he was not willing to inform me.


 * 3) Please do not infer from Jimbo's inaction a non-blocked but otherwise dark and sinister past. I didn't edit highly argumentative things like abortion or Naziism or "racial intelligence" or Scientology or Israel/Palestine debate or anything like that. He certainly never hinted of any concern like that to me. I don't know what his deal is. He didn't live up to his agreement to treat my appeal favorably. He could have explained himself to me, and maybe that would be living up to our deal whatever his actual decision, but he didn't even bother to explain. I trusted Jimmy Wales and he left me high and dry.


 * 4) Does any of this help inform your decision to unblock me or not? Well, you may rest assured that Jimmy Wales examined my prior account and found it block and sanction-free. Do you feel a need to get him to verify that? You should take my word for it. I dare him to deny it. Don't keep me waiting while trying to coax a statement from him. This is Colton Cosmic. 11:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, email me the previous account name then and I will judge for myself. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * 1) I will not. I ask you to take it on faith, given that there is no evidence of deception in any of my Wikipedia editing. The transparency of my IP-based block evasion should tell you I am straightforward and upfront. I refuse to sock. My very first edit should tell you I'm straightforward and upfront. Why in the world would I have typed that, were it not true?


 * 2) Even were I to tell you my prior account, it doesn't prove anything. I could have ten prior accounts, each dedicated to Satanism and the KKK and my one specially dedicated to personally attacking Nomoskedasticity and the one with which I just vandalize articles with profanity and so forth. Me providing my actual prior account does not disprove any of those crazy suspicions.


 * 3) Do you really want to base your decision on suspicion unsupported by any fact-based argument you can articulate? My experiences on the Internet and Wikipedia have led me to believe I should protect my privacy. My prior account is vulnerable to creepers, snoopy sniffers, and such. I am not paranoid about such things, I have had my reputation deliberately damaged by these sorts.


 * 4) If requiring me to disclose it to you is your criterion for unblocking, I do not respect that but neither can I be offended by it, because you don't owe me anything. A) please do not require this before unblocking me, and B) if you won't, at least comment the RFC/U. This is Colton Cosmic. 13:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Conversely, if it is an innocuous account, why not trust me with it? It makes me suspicious that I am being played otherwise. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

C a n 't respond due to K w w filt3ring.

C.

C. 14:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * 0) What happened just above (I think from past experience) is that Kww added that IP to a list of them in his "abuse filter" he took time from his busy day to code specially for me. The thing I dislike most about it is that it intercepts my communications to others (in this case you) and forwards them to Kww. It's like he's reading our mail. Were my words to you "abusive?" No. In order for his filter to trap more of my comments, he's plugged in a vast list of keywords, not just 65 variations of my username (to stop me from signing) but common words he supposes I'll use, like "unblock." He's also the one who blocked me from my talkpage on a bogus charge of "canvassing." He's now eagerly monitoring your talkpage and liable to revert me. If I don't reply to you, it probably means I can't. Unblock merely my talkpage to me if you want to continue the discussion.


 * 1) To answer you (if this goes through) the privacy implications are the same whether my prior account is innocuous or cancerous. I don't think you should be suspicious that I don't hand it over to you. Not to fault you in any sense, but factually A) we are not friends, B) there's no established basis for trust that you'd not further disclose it, and C) it wouldn't prove anything, as I explained. I was also burned by Jimbo on this.


 * 2) I appeal to you for unblock on the basis of policy, and ask that you appraise the situations based on the observable factuality in the edit history, not some gnawing suspicious voice in the back of your mind. I guess some suspicion is understandable if you are affected by the sight of the many remarks of my critics who are also suspicious. These are people that get off on "cracking the case," without regard to my privacy concerns. Little "investigators" and wanna-be cyber-policemen. Not to condescend, but ask yourself: what is their evidence? There is none. Where is the evidence that Colton Cosmic is a malicious sock, and other than the WP:CLEANSTART user he professes to be? All I am is a guy who enjoyed editing Wikipedia for a long time, almost as long as you, and I'd like to do so again.


 * 3) There is no evidence. That is why Timotheus stayed silent on his blocking rationale for so long. In the absence of public comment, people assumed he had "secret evidence." It took forever to pry out of him that there was nothing there. I am not playing you, he is playing everyone by leveraging their suspicions. I don't even really think it was my remark about Nomo. He was just irritated that I criticized some heavy-handed administrators (I didn't realize I had to bow down) and he had a tempting Twinkle button with pre-set WP:ILLEGIT text handy, and the rest is history. This is Colton Cosmic.


 * 4) PS: do what you will, but don't walk away believing I attempted to "play you." The facts are there in the Colton Cosmic account's contribution history and the charges are there in the block log. The facts do not justify the blocks. Might you disapprove of one or another of my actions *after* the block? I guess, but that should not be the question. Worst case scenario if you unblock and someone then finally furnishes the evidence I'm Hitler after all, is that you say you did due diligence and acted on good faith belief. I have what seem to me strangely determined detractors, including some at Arbcom, but I do not think it likely they could desysop you if you just explain yourself and say you did your best.


 * The next time Colton contacts you, please drop me a note. It makes it easier to enforce his block if I don't have to look for him.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Did I call it correctly above, Casliber? I feel this person is wikihounding me. Instead of refraining from associating a username with IPs, he posts my IPs with hyperlinks prominently at WP:AN/ANI discussion to intimidate me. I post via IP because it is the only way for me to communicate with fellow editors short of socking. That's no excuse for him to go around publishing them. Kww is an adm0n|shed administrator. He's filtering your page now, did you want that? If you unlock my talkpage to me I'm willing to continue our discussion there. Colton.

Hilda Rix Nicholas
Hi Cas. I think I'm done with responding to your suggestions. Have another look and see what you think. I'm hoping to take it to FAC next month, so any other ideas you may have would also be gratefully received. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 11:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Written there - looking good. Extra bit has helped article immensely. Will use this cute ping tool to alert, and  if they can take a squiz. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Cas! I do want to get to FAC reviews some time, but have a couple of RL deadlines to contend with in next few days...hamiltonstone (talk) 01:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 22 March
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. 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:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * On the Z Canis Majoris page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=600735330 your edit] caused a URL error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F600735330%7CZ Canis Majoris%5D%5D Ask for help])

Are You Experienced
Hi. As you recently reviewed the article, would you care to weigh in on this discussion? It concerns whether a particular review quote should be removed from an article. --John (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for NGC 2360
The DYK project (nominate) 10:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Z Canis Majoris
Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

GA review
Thank you for your efforts there Casliber.... Peripitus (Talk) 10:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No probs - I like Launceston and Tassie - will go back one day....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Extra eyes needed
Any chance of eyes on this? It needs more than just two editors disagreeing. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sigh - crazy day IRL. Will take a look later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Look, it might be getting sorted, so hopefully not much effort required, just a quick glance to see how it is going.hamiltonstone (talk) 05:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Ashton Court
Thanks for your review of Ashton Court which has definitely helped to improve the article.&mdash; Rod talk 07:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I hope so! Good luck! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for nomination as an admin
You mentioned that you're the type of person who would be willing to sponsor someone as an administrator on Wikipedia. I tried nominating myself back in 2005 after I'd only been here a couple of years and that was shot down, mainly because I guess it was felt I hadn't taken it all that seriously.

Now, nine years later I think I've gone as far as I can as a regular editor and I think my behavior and the quality of my many thousands of edits and talents indicate I qualify to become an admin. I'll give you some examples.


 * Check almost any page on area codes for the United States, like List of California area codes or Area code 202 and you'll find the map I did for them, which is now using SVG instead of PNG so the map resizes automatically and without blur.
 * Every area code page for North America has a box in it indicating the area codes near to it or in the same state, so someone can navigate to nearby area codes.
 * Some of the area codes Area Code 602, have maps that are marked with a clickmap so you can click on the page representing a nearby area code and move to it.
 * Check out 2013, 2014 and 2015, the first one's first paragraph says "2013 was a" the second says "2014 is the current year, and is a" and 2015 says "2015 will be a". Guess what happens on January 1? Just what it did before when we changed years to 2014. 2014 will say "2014 was a," 2015 will say "2015 is the current year, and is a" and 2016 will still say "2016 will be a," and this all happened automatically through template syntax, it eliminates temporal editing, the page is automatically accurate without manual intervention.
 * Look at the main page for Wiktionary. Do you know why it has an alphabetical index on it? Because I thought of it first, and put it on there (this was back in the days when anyone could edit the main page.) It's become one of the important features.
 * Look at my own user page, notice I have implemented "tabbed wikipedia" where my page points to all of the years I was here and individual years can be navigated to. I documented and streamlined this feature so it was easy for anyone to use on their pages.

This is just some of the things I have done to make Wikipedia a better place, and I think with Administrator privileges I can do more things to make things better. Like, say I have an idea for a really good improvement to the main page, I can discuss that - that is a big change that I wouldn't do without getting a consensus - and if there's no objection then I can implement it without having to beg someone to do it for me. For less important but otherwise protected pages where I can see there is room for a really good improvement, I can just offer it.

But I do think I would qualify and I'd like your input and whether you think I would be worth sponsoring as an administrator. I've asked a couple other people, not to try to play one off against the other, but so that if I'm not up to snuff you or they can give me some input into where I'm deficient. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * G'day Paul - this is what I would recommend - I wouldn't want a repeat of Requests for adminship/Rfc1394....


 * 1) . More edits - if you nommed right now, you'd get opposes on underactivity. I recommend maintaining a higher level of activity for three months - there are loads of things that need eyes - win friends at Peer Review - folks who've listed articles here would be insanely grateful for any feedback at all - just take a deep breath and ask thyself, "what could be better in this article and opine away...". Alternately, find anywhere else you might wish to contribute more - fixing typos, fixing and/or reffing facts, anything, just be more active. I'd advise against getting into too many arguments if you worry you might lose your temper....Writing a Good Article might be very helpful.....
 * 2) . Define what exactly you'd like the tools for - I'm thinking it'd be editing high risk templates that are full-protected, and altering protection levels of these templates mainly. Try and figure out anything else yuo might help with - if you do, familiarise yourself with the area first.
 * 3) . For god's sake don't right such a verbose intro next time! Just short and sweet, or let someone nominate you....
 * 4) . What are the worst disputes you've been in.
 * 5) . Look at the three questions and figure how you'd answer them. Short and sweet is the rule.
 * 6) . I need to think some more but all these are a minimum - I'd nominate you only if you followed up all these, not because I am a snob but I would hate to see you go through the process and fail, so would only nominate if I felt you had a reasonable chance of passing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for FS Canis Majoris
Cheers and thanks, hope you are having a good weekend Victuallers (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Banksia lemanniana
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Banksia lemanniana you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- 07:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Harassment
I reckon I am the victim of harassment by AfadsBad and have made a complaint at the Administrators' noticeboard. I see you made a comment on the Wikipediocracy forum so know about the thread focussed on me. I was given the link by another editor but chose not to look at it until today. Of course, the real question is, are my articles the rubbish that AfadsBad makes them out to be? I find it difficult to understand AfadsBad's motivation. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it started with the desert article (?). There is a thread somewhere. I haven't looked closely into the situation. I challenged her to cite specific examples rather than make sweeping generalisations but haven't checked as yet as I am pretty tired. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I did cite examples. But you were not that interested, Casliber. Yes, your science articles are pure rubbish, Cwmhiraeth. You fought me and reinserted that information that C4 and CAM photosynthesis are the same. You completely made it up. Your level of understanding of taxonomy, evolution and biology are far too low to see the problems with your science articles. I have no basis for explaining to you how bad your articles are. You still haven't corrected the bat articles. You don't know how to synthesize information from a science article. Sometimes you pick the correct piece, but more often you grab a random fact and put it in an article, often misstating it, and you picked the wrong fact giving it the wrong weight. Your articles are worse than I have said. They need removed from Wikipedia until they can be checked and rewritten.
 * I did read an article you wrote about a building, or something, and it appeared accurate and well written. But your fundamental understanding of science is too low level to write articles using the technical literature or lengthy on-line works. When you do that you make huge assumptions and generalizations that are wrong, like reading how CAM photosynthesis works, then just assuming C4 works the same way, and reverting me and saying the article said they were the same. You also should not be synthesizing mixed taxonomies from 1963 texts with modern day review articles--taxomony does not work that way, and Wikipedia doesn't either. --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC))
 * This is the diff of the changes to the Desert article that AfadsBad made, referring to the C4 and CAM matters, and the cactus comment. As a result I altered the cactus statement and reworded the C4 and CAM bit. When AfadsBad again removed the latter I accepted the fact that I may have misunderstood the source as it was a subject I did not know anything about (I studied Zoology and not Botany). That should have been the end of the matter but AfadsBad has been harping on about it ever since. At that time, Desert was having an arduous GA review performed by Sp33dyphil in which AfadsBad also took part and which was quite amicable. Any idea that the Desert article was dreadful was not expressed at the time of the review but only later on the blog. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, the next one that specific complaints were made about is Gastrosaccus spinifer - I didn't get round to looking at this. I meant to get back to the termite too as I've been writing DYKs anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Harping on it? You keep doing it. You added the misinformation that all bats ecolocate to bat articles you created--you change not just minor details, but you alter major mysteries of science, botany and zoology.
 * The Desert exchange was not as you state. I removed the misinformation that all cacti don't have leaves, and you scolded me thus, "Thank you for your comments, AfadsBad. I will consider the points you raise and make alterations where I think they are required, but please do not remove chunks of sourced information as you did with the sentence on cacti, thereby interrupting the flow of the text. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)" Inaccuracy be damned, you seemed to say, as long as the sentence flowed, and you claimed ownership of the article, also without regard to accuracy. And you returned the C4 misstatement to the article, again claiming it was sourced. --(AfadsBad (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC))
 * This is the diff for the statement on echolocation that I changed in the Natterer's bat article that AfadsBad mentions above. The sentence I originally used, "Bats emit sounds at too high a frequency for most humans to detect", has a different meaning from the statement "all bats ecolocate" to which AfadsBad refers frequently. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Bats don't emit sounds at too high a frequency for most humans to detect. Only some bats, evolutionary distinguished and interesting, do that. When you make these generalities, that "bats do this," and think it means "the bats you are thinking of and talking about," you are not informing scientifically accurate information. Your information is false. Bats do not emit sounds at too high a frequency. Only some very specific bats have evolved to do this. This is how taxa are described, they are distinguished from other taxa by characteristics. You can't seem to understand that a distinguishing characteristic is not some loose random piece of information you can apply at whatever clade you want to, "bats" versus "echolocating bats," to your pleasure. This is biology. You are writing articles about taxa. Distinguishing characteristics require accuracy, and you don't use them with accuracy. --(AfadsBad (talk) 05:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC))
 * this edit uses the phrase "many other" species of bat - right at this point in time I am not aware of the proportion of bat species that use echolocation to determine whether the description is apt. Will look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Right - having browsed some entries, it suggests all microbats, which constitute 80% of all bat species (i.e. all but the megabats) use echolocation, which means the description is accurate. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not accurate. The trait of echolocation is not randomly distributed among bats. It's an evolutionary adaptation in a specific clade, and its appearance in this clade is a huge area of study in the zoological sciences, why do similarly equipped (transmitter/receiver) non-microbat mammals not have this trait, what are the evolutionary advantages/disadvantages, when did it arise, what about echolocating non microbats. There are entire books devoted to this trait. Sloppiness is not accuracy, and being sloppy does not add any credibility to an encyclopedia article. --(AfadsBad (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC))
 * @Afadsbad - he exact distribution of echolocation among all chiroptera is way tangential to the Natterer's bat article - ultimately the situation appears to be that all microbats and one megabat seem to use it (but the megabat uses a different mechanism to make the click) - the other issue is that two clades of microbats appear to be only distantly related and hence there is a question mark over whether all bats had it and then it was subsequently lost or has developed twice. However I am not sure how established that phylogeny is. But as far as the species article in question, "alot/many/most' bats having echolocation is clearly sufficient. I will look at some other examples soon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not sufficient, and it is not accurate. Cwmhiraeth frequently elevates traits from one taxon to a higher taxon, and to approve of it here when it is unnecessary and inaccurate will just guarantee more inaccuracies in Wikipedia articles. She also wavers on traits, applying maybes that rewrite the biology. This trait, echolocation, and the scientific wonder surrounding it should not be reduced to an ambiguity for no reason. To encourage that lowers the overall level of accuracy of Wikipedia and its science articles with no benefit to the encyclopedia and its readers. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC))
 * The article is about one species of bat - not bat phylogeny or echolocation in general. I am satisfied. I will soon look at some others. If you want to argue the point on that article feel free to ask someone else, but don't be surprised if they see it the same way I do. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, one might have said something like, "Along with other echolocating bats (linked to the article on the appropriate taxon that shares this characteristic), Natterer's bat emits ...". There is a way to be precise about such things, and I don't think the quest for precision is idle. Andreas JN 466 21:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Everyone "felt" that having liquids sediments that had never been melted intrude rocks that wouldn't exist for another 600 million years was just fine. I have no interest in what anyone "feels." Randomly adding meaningless information because it's not "technically incorrect," which is what you are saying will never be accurate no matter how many editors "feel" it is just fine. I'm reviewing another article, and I suggest we take this there, where Cwmhiraeth uses the suborder information to describe the species; if the article is about a species, describe the species, carefully including and identifying what information is necessary to describe the genus or higher taxa characteristics that apply as needed. But don't just randomly insert descriptions of an order or a suborder and say it is describing the species, so that a reader goes to another species in the genus and find a different description. The idea is to build a robust encyclopedia, not a random collection of facts that can or cannot apply to the clade if you can guess what the editor is talking about at that level. So, let's put this on the editor review to keep everything in one place for other interested editors, if any. Of that, I assume there are very few who follow WP:Verifiability. --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC))
 * - yes that was/is an improvement and would be worth putting in. - yes, let's keep it all in the one place at editor review.  Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've made some further comments at the editor review today. Please have a look. The desert article requires urgent remedial action (content clean-up and a GAR). Andreas JN 466 11:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

)
 * ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 March newsletter
A quick update as we are half way through round two of this year's competition. WikiCup newcomer (Pool E) leads, having produced a massive set of featured pictures for Silver certificate (United States), an article also brought to featured list status. Former finalist (Pool G) is in second, which he owes mostly to his work with historical images, including a number of images from Urania's Mirror, an article also brought to good status. 2010 champion (Pool C) is third overall, thanks to contributions relating to naval history, including the newly featured Japanese battleship Nagato. , who currently leads Pool A and is sixth overall, takes the title for the highest scoring individual article of the competition so far, with the top importance featured article Ian Smith.

With 26 people having already scored over 100 points, it is likely that well over 100 points will be needed to secure a place in round 3. Recent years have required 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) and 100 (2010). Remember that only 64 will progress to round 3 at the end of April. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page; if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally. 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. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! 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 yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you around?
Are you around? And not too busy, by any chance? I've got a CU problem that's getting urgent. There's nobody on IRC, it seems. :-( Bishonen &#124; talk 21:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC).
 * Sorry Bish - I gave up my CU tools when my arb term ran out :( Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You're not a CU? Horror! Watch me losing all respect for you. But somebody else took care of my problem, so I'm fine, thanks. Bishonen &#124; talk 12:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC).
 * Yeah no, it fell too way down on things I like to do to relax, which is writing really. Arbing and Adminning are ok-ish sometimes but get relegated if time and sanity are in short supply....CU sorta goes with that and I wouldn't really do it justice. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Banksia lemanniana
The article Banksia lemanniana you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Banksia lemanniana for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- 06:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Belated thanks
I know this is terribly late but I wanted to take a moment to thank you for your participation at my RfA. While you did not support my nomination, I still appreciated your thoughtful participation in the process. I look forward to the opportunity to work together in the days to come. Best wishes, -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 19:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Innes' star
Thank you for this article Victuallers (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup error
Hi there- this is just a quick note to apologise for a small but important mistake in the last WikiCup newsletter; it is not 64 users who will progress to the next round, but 32. J Milburn (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Banksia media
The DYK project (nominate) 00:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of When Björk Met Attenborough
Hello! Your submission of When Björk Met Attenborough at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Edwardx (talk) 10:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Approaching a century
I see that when your current FA nom and conom are promoted, you will become WP's second FA centurion – a remarkable achievement. When Wehwalt reached 100 FAs last year I wrote a short Signpost tribute based on a short q and a session. I'd like to do the same for you, if you are agreeable – please let me know. Brianboulton (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, happy to. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for White-fronted Chat
Thanks from the wiki Victuallers (talk) 08:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Banksia coccinea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Petiole (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Banksia redirects
Please see Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_24 which I am minded to close as "no action" unless someone takes it forward. – Fayenatic  L ondon 10:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a lot of tagging that's for sure.....not sure what to do really.....a bot can't do this? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I closed it as Delete, but listed it at WP:CFDWM for the talk pages to be tagged first. That should give you all time to find out how to get the task done. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Psych literature
In follow-up to your comment on Iridescent's talkpage: I don't know how you can stand to deal with the psychiatric literature. Of course, the oncology literature has its own set of problems, and the less said of the surgical literature the better, but psychiatry has always seemed to me to be on a level of its own. The first thing I look for in these papers is the disclosure of conflicts of interest; for the Trial 144 paper, we find that the first author "has received research support from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), Abbott, AstraZeneca, Biovail, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Burroughs Wellcome, Cenerx, Cephalon, Ciba Geigy, CoMentis, Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma America, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Forest, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, Lundbeck, McNeil Pharmaceuticals, Medicinova, Merck, Neurochem, New River Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Organon, Pfizer, Pharmacia, Repligen, Saegis, Sandoz, Sanofi, Sanofi-Synthelabo, Schwabe/Ingenix, Sepracor, Shire, Sunovion, Synaptic, Takeda, TAP, Transcept Pharma, UCB Pharma, Vela, and Wyeth; has served as a consultant to Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the NIMH, Abbott, AstraZeneca, Biovail, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cephalon, Corcept, Eli Lilly, Forest, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Medscape Advisory Board, Organon, Otsuka America Pharma, Pfizer, Pharmacia, Sanofi, Sanofi-Synthelabo, Shire, Solvay, Sunovion, Takeda, Transcept Pharma, TransTech, Validus, and Wyeth; has been on Speaker’s Bureaus of Abbott, AstraZeneca, Biovail, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Burroughs Wellcome, Cephalon, Ciba Geigy, Eli Lilly, Forest, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Organon, Pfizer, Sanofi, Sanofi-Synthelabo, Shire, Solvay, Sunovion, Validus, and Wyeth; and has held or holds stock in Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cortex, Merck, and Pfizer." It would probably be easier to list the conflicts of interest that he doesn't have. On that subject, I recently read White Coat, Black Hat by Carl Elliot. I think you'd enjoy it, or be appalled by it, or maybe just nod in recognition. If you don't read the whole book, Elliott's piece on healthy volunteer research subjects ("Guinea Pigging") is a worthwhile shorter (and online) read. He's written quite a bit about quetiapine in particular, and the ways in which it's been marketed. He's also confirmed, in passing, something I've long suspected: it's much easier to get a falsehood or error into print in the medical literature than in the New Yorker or Atlantic. MastCell Talk 21:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A sense of humour helps - actually I have quite a few funny stories but they're not the sort of thing I'd put in writing.....am reading Bad Pharma by Ben Goldacre currently. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Mail
-  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 02:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for When Björk Met Attenborough
Thank you for helping the wiki Victuallers (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:WINC (AM)/GA1
I have replied to your notes. Apologizes for the slowness of the replies, life beckoned. I am online now, though. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 19:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have responded on the GA1 page and corrected the sourcing problems. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 20:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I responded on the GA1 page yesterday. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 10:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Ton-up
Thanks for your co-operation. I've left a few questions here for you to think about and comment on. You'll see the final draft before it goes to Signpost. Brianboulton (talk) 10:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Deletion request
Could you check that this article's deletion proposed is correct? If not, let me know. -- Anton Talk  09:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm, looks like it was proposed for deletion once before and challenged. It does have some sources. I have no idea how reliable the sources are. I think it would be an AfD rather than PROD at this point. Regarding notability, best is to look at the WP:GNG as a watermark that consensus has been grudgingly agreed upon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. -- Anton Talk  14:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Grus and Uncle David
Hello Cas, I've provided some points for your consideration at Grus. Meanwhile, languishing at the very bottom of FAC is Uncle David. It isn't a very pleasant subject (at least, that was my view), and the nominator was obviously a bit inexperienced, but it'd be a shame to see it die off at its third attempt at FAC for lack of scrutiny. Plus the article is quite short, so it isn't too much effort to check out. Do you think you might take a look? PS - there's a malfunction of some sort in its FAC entry - not all review comments are visible until you go to the actual review page. wierd.hamiltonstone (talk) 12:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok - yes I like trying to help out new nominators - I took a look at FAC - same deal, new nominator would benefit with some feedback. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * wierd coincidence - i just reviewed the Sultanate - and then found your comment here! Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 13:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=603595496 your edit] to Prostanthera incisa may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Eucalyptus amplifolia|E. amplifolia]]), Sydney peppermint E. piperita, red bloodwood (Corymbia gummifera) or turpentine (Syncarpia glomulifera''). It can

Original research
As my harassment complaint at AnI drags on, but on the mercifully shorter discussion on how to sanction me, I am pointing out what I consider to be a misinterpretation by another editor of what constitutes original research. I also mention that Boring clam, the subject of the first criticism by that editor, was in the process of expansion at the time. The content objected to was less than five hours old, and would have been revised as I found out more about the clam. Your opinion on the matter at AnI would be much appreciated. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Haven't gotten there yet - please change FN 12 in poultry while I take a look at AN/I Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Yellowhammer
As you have discovered, I've just started working this up on the long road to FA. IS the map wrong where it shows it as introduced to OZ? I'm going to redo the map anyway, just checking while I think of it  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  12:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And thanks for your usual balanced comments at the ANI mentioned above. I'm not wired to be neutral on something like this, and I'm saddened that an admin seems to be a willing participant in the harassment  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  12:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes - we need to change that map and white out Oz - no Yellowhammers here. As for the other....not unexpected. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I found it disheartening in NZ that much of the time it was liking birding in my garden at home!  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  09:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The Downward Spiral revision diffs
See this "Difference between revisions" page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Downward_Spiral&diff=604554123&oldid=557645674 }I Mr* &#124; (60nna) I{ 08:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay - I'm seeing. What am I supposed to notice.....? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This is the differences between two revisions of The Downward Spiral: The first revision before I started editing the article, and the second one during the GAN review. You were supposed to notice how this article significantly changed from then to now: It got expanded, doublechecked, and copyedited. }I Mr* &#124; (60nna) I{ 18:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, noticed that already. HAng on, been offline. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Is The Downward Spiral good enough to be a good article (GA)? }I Mr* &#124; (60nna) I{ 05:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Peer review
Hello Casliber. Do you have some spare time to review Megadeth and make suggestions on what needs to be fixed at the review page? I'm planning to candidate the article for FA, and some thought about that would also be helpful. See you.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Cinema of India
Do you think Cinema of India can be unprotected yet? Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Good question....dunno.....maybe I'll toss a coin at this point and unprotect if heads......(pause) ok heads it is. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Banksia coccinea
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Banksia coccinea you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Thomas Martyn
Thanks for your fix to my link to Thomas Martyn at Scadoxus multiflorus. There seems to be some confusion in IPNI at Martyn – the date of birth is different from the sources in the Wikipedia article and there's an extra initial "M.", which misled me. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I was browsing - always wanted to grow this plant, and last weekend snuck away to a rare plant fair where (it turns out) a South African friend of mine is growing/propagating and selling it - so after twenty years I've bought a couple. I initially saw some mature specimens of Haemanthus albiflos there (amazing!) but I reckon I'd kill them as I have a habit of killing with overwatering...so I think I am safer with Scadoxus....(and yes they are subspecies katherinae) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * WRT Martyn - I am a neophyte so can't help further.....
 * I think it's pretty impossible to kill Haemanthus albiflos if you keep it away from more than a few degrees of frost. I've had mine in one or more pots here in the UK since the 1980s; it's been kept in the house, in a cold greenhouse, in a conservatory, etc. I water them when I remember – usually too little and sometimes too much. It surprises me by flowering in late autumn every year. I'd really like to grow some Scadoxus species! Peter coxhead (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's good to know - I was really impressed by some large meaty specimens, but was scared off by watering. We get no frosts here in Sydney so am busy planting so everything's roots are nice and rested and settled in to kick off in the spring.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Banksia coccinea
The article Banksia coccinea you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Banksia coccinea for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 10:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Urodacus manicatus
Casliber, I have conducted an initial review, and have some concerns. Best regards. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎</b>) 21:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you be persuaded to offer an ALT1? <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 21:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you find a picture? That might be good in the DYK, and would sex up the article, too.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 22:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, that one got yanked off to the preps pretty quick...never mind, whipped up another one with a pic this time. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Sgt. Pepper peer review
Hi, Cas liber. I've put Sgt. Pepper up at peer review and I would appreciate any comments and/or suggestions you have for improving the article in preparation for FAC. Cheers! GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  16:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Urodacus manicatus
The DYK project (nominate) 18:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

bird names
I've made a suggestion at the afc that I now close it--could you look, and say if you agree?  DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Banksia coccinea
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 06:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for The Downward Spiral
slakr \ talk / 23:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful GAN review and DYK nomination! Hooray! I'm happy! (=D) }I Mr* &#124; (60nna) I{ 07:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Talkback on Featured article candidates/Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River)/archive3
Hi! Thanks for reviewing my FAC for Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River). I've addressed the comments you posted there, hopefully to your satisfaction. --Jakob (talk) (Please comment on my editor review.) 23:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for striking some of the comments, but why are a few are still unstruck? --Jakob (talk) (Please comment on my editor review.) 13:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, got sidetracked by real life events. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've now responded to your follow-up comments there. --Jakob (talk) (Please comment on my editor review.) 20:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Jack Charlton
The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Travancore Tamil Nadu Congress
Cas Liber, it feels uncomfortable to see this rejected solely—it really is solely—because no one reviewed this for over two months. That "review again" icon went up on February 20, and no one touched it even after the nominator said that the issues mentioned had been dealt with two days later, despite it being featured at the top of the older nominations needing review posts in WT:DYK. It's like we're penalizing the nominator because no one was in the mood to review it, even though, reading through it now, I can see that it would need work and a good reviewer to bring it up to DYK level. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was in two minds...but I was concerned over discussion of sourcing and neutrality. Tell you what - I will reverse that and if you could take a close look and tell me what you think. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Sebastian and his black mamba
Funny, I was thinking about him the other day, wondering when and how he would be back. And I got your ping, but happened to be scrolling down the page at ANI and when I ran into this toxicology discussion I thought Hey! Sebastian! and then realized you were at the bottom of that discussion. Thanks for stepping in there; you saved admin face. Now let's wait for CU so we don't have to do all that behavioral stuff which, at first sight, suggests a match. Well done, my friend. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * ......(cue witty comment about a snake in the grass...) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK Barnstar

 * thx :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

My editor review
I would be grateful if you could close my editor review, or get someone else to do so. I understand that I could close it myself, but I am hoping that whoever closes it will provide a brief statement that contradicts AfadsBad's assertions that there are "multiple mistakes in every article" and that "every one of these articles needs [to be] extensively rewritten to be accurate". I am looking for such a statement because I want to be able to use it in the Wikipediocracy forum thread devoted to me, "Cwmhiraeth, the greatest vandal of them all" in the hope that that thread will be terminated. You said that you would look at my latest article. I don't know if you have done so, but you can see here that AfadsBad has and that the harassment continues unabated. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm, not sure of the etiquette of this. Let me think on it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I've asked User:Black Kite to close it, since he/she was apparently going to be the neutral arbiter, but no response or reply yet, so perhaps he/she has walked away. I don't know if anyone else uninvolved is prepared to close this shameful chapter (for obvious reasons, I can't pretend to be neutral). <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  10:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you both. Ideally it would be someone not previously involved with the editor review. Anyone who has stated a view early on in the proceedings might not want to change it later for fear of looking foolish. I wouldn't think they would need a scientific background. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have now closed my editor review. User:johnCD made a very fair statement on my competence and I made a closing statement. Thank you both for your help and your contributions to the An/I and the editor review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Banksia montana
Hello! Your submission of Banksia montana at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Cas Liber, I've been looking at the dryandra_montana.pdf file, and while I think it's a good source, care needs to be taken with it. It claims up front to have been accurate as of January 2008, but the basic information on numbers of adult and juvenile plants, which is in the "Summary of population information and threats" table at the top of page 12, is clearly dating its numbers as of February and March 2004, and the numbers (excluding the last entry, which is not "wild"), come to 45 adults and 16 juveniles. So I don't think you can use the 2008 date, but have to use 2004 since that's when the data was collected, unless you find a source with more recent data. I think the adult plants hook is best, but a 2004 date is called for, and the article needs to be updated to specify 45 adults (and 61 total, with the 16 juveniles) in the wild as of February/March 2004. Once those adjustments are made, I'll be happy to reapprove the nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Banksia montana
ThaddeusB (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Nirmala (novel)
Cas Liber, I'm afraid I've had to mark this with the big orange DYK "X"; almost the entire Theme section was lifted from former FN6 (the Google play external link), and I found one sentence in Plot that was directly copied and others look suspicious. As I was aiming to work on a prep set for DYK, I don't have time to do more (barely an hour before we'll need a new set for the main page), but I'm hoping you'll be able to do cleanup on the article, or whatever is appropriate. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It looks like ThaddeusB has done some tagging on the article, so there's less immediate urgency. Speaking of urgency, if you happen to see this soon, we're once again late promoting the next set for DYK, but Prep 3 is ready to be queued. Thanks, and thanks for the note on my talk page. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Got it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, you could always do these youself if you were an admin. Have you thought about running? Most of my admin activity has been protecting and moving pages...and editing protected ones. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 April newsletter
Round 3 of the 2014 WikiCup has just begun; 32 competitors remain. Pool G's was Round 2's highest scorer, with a large number of featured picture credits. In March/April, he restored star charts from Urania's Mirror, lithographs of various warships (such as SMS Gefion) and assorted other historical media. Second overall was Pool E's, whose featured list Silver certificate (United States) contains dozens of scans of banknotes recently promoted to featured picture status. Third was Pool G's who has produced a large number of good articles, many, including Falkner Island, on Connecticut-related topics. Other successful participants included, who saw three articles (including the top-importance Ian Smith) through featured article candidacies, and , who saw three lists (including the beautifully-illustrated list of plantations in West Virginia) through featured list candidacies. High-importance good articles promoted this round include narwhal from, tiger from and The Lion King from. We also saw our first featured topic points of the competition, awarded to and  for their work on the Sega Genesis topic. No points have been claimed so far for good topics or featured portals.

192 was our lowest qualifying score, again showing that this WikiCup is the most competitive ever. In previous years, 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) or 100 (2010) secured a place in Round 3. Pool H was the strongest performer, with all but one of its members advancing, while only the two highest scorers in Pools G and F advanced. At the end of June, 16 users will advance into the semi-finals. 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. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! 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 yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 17:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Editathon
Hi Cas,

Can you come along to the Tribute Editathon next Saturday (10 May) at the State Library? It would be great to have your participation. We now have a person from the newly-launched Encyclopedia of Women and Leadership which would in itself provide resources for articles in which you are interested.

Cheers, Whiteghost.ink
 * Will see what I can do. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Excellent! Whiteghost.ink (talk) 03:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK promotion needed in 10 minutes
...or whenever you're around, assuming someone else doesn't get to it first. I just finished Prep 1, and it needs to go to Queue 1 so the bot can picked it up at 04:30 UTC. If you do, please take a quick look at the set first to make sure nothing jumps out at you. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I just started when I was edit-conflicted, so looks like beat me to it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I would have preferred you did it because I'm inexperienced. Would you mind making sure I did it right?--v/r - TP 05:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's cool - only thing I think missed was the top line. No biggie, just glad some other folks have an eye out. Blue Moonset, I was serious wne I mentioned adminship - it makes tinkering with these pages a helluva lot easier....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Got it - will remember next time. I only did it because it was an hour late and I figured I couldn't make it any worse.  Not really my area.--v/r - TP 05:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Banksia praemorsa
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Musca (constellation)
Was working on the WikiCup Signpost article, needed a picture for your FA, remembered "Oh, crap!" so got it done. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Great! Cool add. 04:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

WINC (AM) on FAC
Hello, I just wanted to let you know that the WINC (AM) article, which you did a GA review on, is currently up on FAC. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 21:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Rosemary's Baby (miniseries)‎
Could you take a look at Template:Did you know nominations/Rosemary's Baby (miniseries)‎, which is an impending date request.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Natalia Poklonskaya
Hello Casliber, a moment of your time please. You said we shouldn't run this on the front page. It is claimed that, since you added your opinion, the article is seriously improved. I would like to ask you to revisit the discussion and, at the bottom, (briefly) state if you are still opposed. It is a matter of some contention, to put it mildly. Thanks in advance, Drmies (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Albany Oregon
I just wanted to say thank you for your contribution to the Albany, Oregon page. I have put a lot of time in to this article in the past to get it up from a start level article to the B-grade it is these days. With the edits you have made along with others it has helped put it a step closer to being able to be an A-Grade article.

MathewDill (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * no worries - I am glad you're proud of your local area and happy to buff it up. Many of the Featured Articles are plants and animals I've seen (or grown) in my garden....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Prep 2 loading
Cas Liber, I hate to stop anyone loading, but we have two special occasion hooks for May 11, both with images, in the holding area, and I really think one of them should be used in the lead slot in prep 2. It shouldn't be a problem, because the cathedral you've just loaded would be ideal for prep 1—it would actually run for the day and evening in Europe, instead of nighttime and early morning in prep 2.

I'll leave it to you whether you'd like me to move the cathedral, or if you'd prefer doing so. And also whether you want to decide which of the two special occasion hooks gets the lead slot in prep 2 once the one there has been moved.

Finally, I've just finished off prep 4, so it's ready to be promoted to queue 5, something that needs to happen in the next hour and a half. (One of your hooks is in it, so you may not want to do the promotion in that case.) Thanks, and sorry for the prep collision. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * By all means shuffle away. I'll move prep 4 and leave you to sort the others. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you; I'll do the sort. BTW, do you have any opinion on running two Arizona Territory bio hooks in the same set? If we did, they'd need to be separated; they were originally nominated back when we did three sets a day, so running one in each (there's a third already in prep 4) would have been possible. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with it. I have often thought if we had enough material to have themed sets with clumps of hooks on, say, endangered species on world environment day or whatever. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Eucalyptus alba
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Canis Major
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Canis Major you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hamiltonstone -- Hamiltonstone (talk) 13:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Canis Major
The article Canis Major you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Canis Major for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hamiltonstone -- Hamiltonstone (talk) 14:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

"Not a personal attack"
The ANI has been closed, appropriately, with consensus that there was no personal attack. I agree. That's definitely the consensus... though I don't agree with the consensus. In fact, I don't understand the consensus opinion about this at all. I mean, I agree it was not a personal attack of a particularly extreme nature, but it sure seemed like one to me, and therefore emblematic of the type of problem WP:NPA is trying to address.

As one of the people who declared (without explanation) that it was not a personal attack, I wonder how you reconcile that position with what is said WP:NPA:


 * "Criticisms of, or references to, personal behavior in an inappropriate context, like on a policy or article talk page, or in an edit summary, rather than on a user page or conflict resolution page. Remember: Comment on content, not on the contributor."

Surely you agree the comment in question was a criticism of personal behavior on a policy talk page. No? And if you agree it was that, how is that not a personal attack, by definition? Or do you disagree with that bullet at WP:NPA?

Thanks! --В²C ☎ 21:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It was an observation made by the writer. Turning this around - do you've done anything wrong or have any role at all regarding all the criticism over your behaviour on wikipedia? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What was an observation made by what writer? Do you agree with the bullet at WP:NPA quoted above, or not?  If so, how do you reconcile that with your declaration that the comment in question was not an attack? I don't see how my behavior - which I admit has plenty of room for improvement - has anything to do with the question of whether the comment in question was an attack or not.  The issue is not about whether the critical statement was accurate or not, it's whether the context makes it inappropriate to state there, and therefore an attack. Am I asking too much?  Am I missing something?  Is appropriate criticism but not in an inappropriate context not an attack as long as it's accurate, despite what WP:NPA says to the contrary? --В²C ☎ 22:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * FYI: Because of the outcome of the ANI discussion today, the person who criticized me on a policy talk page now apparently feels emboldened to continue engaging in such uncivil behavior. Please see User talk:In ictu oculi. Suggestions/advice appreciated.  Thanks.   --В²C ☎ 00:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I read the editor review and agree with most of the commenters from what I see - just take it for granted that many people have fairly fixed opinions and repeating yourself is not going to magically make them see your point of view. Walls of text are extremely off-putting and peppering discussion pages will antagonise uninvolved editors. These are all about empathy.


 * Personally I don't feel that spending most of one's time her opining on what/how content editors should do content is very collegial. If one spends all their time doing this, it looks like one is putting oneself as some sort of foreman passing judgement on content of others. I am not sure what else I can add. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I certainly agree that "spending most of one's time her opining on what/how content editors should do content is [not] very collegial.".  Are you suggesting that's what I do? If so, do you feel like I'm opining about what you should do?  If not you, then who?   --В²C ☎ 01:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, re above seems best to centralize all this. pinged you here Not sure this mechanism of pinging always works. Best regards. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Anatomy article
The science of anatomy is one of my favorite subjects. Recently, I have been starting discussions on the "Anatomy" article's talk page and editing the "Anatomy" article, a GA. Years ago, we had a series of lectures on the history of medicine at college, which was not an examination topic for us. However, with a formal training in human anatomy and some related topics, I have recently found that reading about the history of anatomy is quite interesting. I started reviewing the Anatomy article, partly because it was listed as one of the most popular articles that User Cwm contributed too in her editor review. I have communicated with User:Chiswick Chap on his talk page about two problematic additions he made to the article. I waited a while before sending him a second message until the possibility became clearer that that he might not have noticed one of my comments on the article's talk page about a citation, which I did not understand how he could have got it so apparently mixed up (wrong author and source not corresponding to the content in the line supported by the in-line ref). Today User Chiswich Chap wrote on my talk page and he asked me not to write on his talk page. I would have thought that most users would welcome feedback especially when possible mistakes are questioned. Have you got any ideas how I could precede from here, if I have any more questions to ask him about what he has put in science articles? Snowman (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the best thing is to keep it all on the talk pages of articles in question. If one wants to alert someone, one can use the 'ping' function, such as which creates an alert at the top of an editor's userpage. Then one needn't edit a talk page to alert the editor. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In the general case, how could an article reviewer become aware that an editor tends to make mistakes unless there is documentation on user talk pages. Documentation could potentially lead to improvements in the Wiki because it would be easier for reviewers to focus on an editor's errors. Snowman (talk) 10:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I see from the Anatomy article's talk page that you are interested in working on the article and also User:Cwmhiraeth has also once again become interested in improving the article. I am delighted that editors have expressed an interest in the article and I hope that a team can be assembled or at least further editors co-opted to help with uncertainties as they arise. I am not a WikiCup participant, and my aim for the article would be help with the sections relevant to anything to do with human anatomy. I would say that I tend to understand concepts, but I find it somewhat more difficult to write about them, so I prefer to work in a team of editors with different skills when expanding "big" topics. I would not want FA reviewers to be overloaded with work nor be excessively concerned about complex science that they do not fully understand. I would hope that the article would look like a finished product when or if it is nominated to FAC. Snowman (talk) 10:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree - one of your strengths is ensuring faithfulness to sources. I can write but I can be a bit careless at times. I am more interested in getting some more core articles up to FA standard. This one looks fun. I was just pondering what to work on next.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that improving the Anatomy article could be tough or an interesting challenge, because of it is a broad topic. Snowman (talk) 11:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * See the link to an In Our Time BBC4 radio episode in the external links section of the Anatomy article for an 35 minutes (approx) interesting discussion about mainly the history of anatomy (I have not been able to corroborate selected parts of it in books). Snowman (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You might consider the "Birth" article, which I have been looking at mainly focusing on page organization, human birth, and birth in animals with a bit more effort. I invited all comers in a collaboration to improve the article during User Cmw's editor review. In any event, I have done a bit of work on it on my own recently including adding the sheep birth image, and so I would be grateful if you would look at it. Snowman (talk) 11:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * birth could be tricky - does it mean all animals that give birth to young rather than eggs? The examples are somewhat arbitrary - why do cattle have a section and horses not? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Questions like those need to be asked on the article's talk page. Think of it as a C class article. So far, the article is about birth of young rather than eggs, but I guess that birth could include eggs as well. The OED says birth is "birth of offspring", and says offspring is "the product or products of sexual reproduction in animals or plants". Snowman (talk) 13:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I just look at that page and wouldn't know where to delineate it. Anatomy is already fairly rounded, just needs some filling out and sorting out of material. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I would think that there is a lot of work to do for the anatomy article, and I would think that it would take 2 to 4 months, probably nearer 4 months, before a FAC is contemplated. After that, I am not sure if it would take 2 weeks or 6 weeks at FAC, hopefully not too long, if the article nudges FA prior to FAC. I think that the article would be more understandable if it has some more evolution, comparative anatomy, fossil records, and embryology. It would be more complete with some more about EM and LM and organelles. Are social functions on humans or chimps reflected in the anatomy of the brain? Can you co-opt anyone who is good with invertebrates? I am planning to be out of doors quite a lot this summer. Please check my grammar and writing style from time to time. Snowman (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I will - do you feel confident that all sources are reflected accurately currently? This has tripped me up in large collaborative articles in the past. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have focused on organizing the page so far, and analyzing parts that look odd, sometimes making quick fixes using common knowedge. I suspect that the correspondence between article and source is not 100%. I think that it would be sensible to check everything. I would not recommend copy-editing the text without checking the sources. Snowman (talk) 08:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Canis Major
The article Canis Major you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Canis Major for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hamiltonstone -- Hamiltonstone (talk) 01:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Nirmala (novel) redux
Cas Liber, this is a bit awkward, but I have to confess I'm uncomfortable about this nomination. Right now the article is two-thirds plot and about a sixth "theme", and at least half of that theme, from the second sentence's first "and", reads very strangely: it reminds me of the sort of thing you might find in a study guide or background commentary in an edition intended for classroom use, and since it's cited to a single page in the Evergreen edition, I imagine that's where it came from. The problem is that when I had to remove the Theme section the first time, it was due to a copyvio; I can't help but wonder whether this is new material is a close paraphrase or copyvio. (I've gone looking, and I can't find that edition online anywhere, unfortunately.) Even if not, the phrase "and with the help of idioms and phrases" is certainly not encyclopedic, and has nothing to do with the theme. If this article was better fleshed out, with sections on reaction to the book and perhaps its place in Premchand's oeuvre (or whether he said anything on why he wrote it or what he wished to accomplish), it would be better balanced. As it is, I think it comes under WP:DYKSG: Articles that fail to deal adequately with the topic are also likely to be rejected. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree - there is material easily accessible online. I was musing on what to post last night but went to sleep. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I appreciate the post you just made there. Incidentally, if you're still around, I just posted to WT:DYK that there's a correction that needs to be made to Queue 4. I also saw your note last week: a number of people have suggested that I go for the mop, but I'm just not interested in the responsibility. Thanks for the vote of confidence. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I still sorta think of it as No Big Deal, just extra tools to carry on about the place here. It's the people who don't particularly want the the tools that are probably best suited for them, in some cases anyway.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Eternal derby (Romania)
Protect this version. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eternal_derby_%28Romania%29&oldid=608565285

Cupa Ligii was a friendly competition. Read this article. http://www.gsp.ro/fotbal/liga-1/nae-si-onofras-umiliti-de-ciini-in-ghencea-povestea-celei-mai-dure-infringeri-a-stelei-in-fata-lui-dinamo-211247.html

After finishing the 1999-2000 season the Red and White (Dinamo) were crowned champions followed a nature friendly competition: Cupa Ligii.

Mihai Stere, Dinamo player: Mihai Stere recalled for gsp.ro Ghencea memorable game in which even managed to score the first goal: "I remember the match with Steaua. Demoted with Farul and went to Dinamo. Signed with them for 6 months and was first my match. Even if playing in the League Cup, a match between Steaua and Dinamo can never be considered friendly.

Steaua used only player who was in trial (like Daniel Munteanu from Universitatea Cluj, Alin Savu from CSM Resita or Alin Biţiş) at Steaua, they have never signed with Steaua, or signed contracts in future years (Mirel Rădoi next year, and Marius Onofraş in 2010).

These players have never had signed contracts with Steaua, automatically were unable to play in a official competitive match, because they had no license to play for Steaua, and the referee had no way to start the game in this situation.

Cupa Ligii was an friendly competition in 2000, not a official, because in an official competitive match a player is unable to play if he have no signed contract, Steaua used only players arrive in trial. Cupa Ligii is a official competition organized from 2014-15 season.

The article posted by you does not refer to the friendly competition from year 2000, he refers to new competition from 2014-15 season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FCSTEAUABUCURESTISA (talk • contribs) 11:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep an account for longer than a few days and you are welcome to edit the article yourself and explain your edits on the talk page. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

In an official competion a team are unable to use player arrived in trial, You konow that? Then, if it was a official competition, those players how they played for Steaua if they have never have signed contract with Steaua? Understand?

Read this article. [http://www.gsp.ro/fotbal/liga-1/nae-si-onofras-umiliti-de-ciini-in-ghencea-povestea-celei-mai-dure-infringeri-a-stelei-in-fata-lui-dinamo-211247.html "After finishing the 1999-2000 season the Red and White (Dinamo) were crowned champions followed a nature friendly competition: Cupa Ligii. Mihai Stere, Dinamo player: Mihai Stere recalled for gsp.ro Ghencea memorable game in which even managed to score the first goal: "I remember the match with Steaua. Demoted with Farul and went to Dinamo. Signed with them for 6 months and was first my match. Even if playing in the League Cup, a match between Steaua and Dinamo can never be considered friendly."] — Preceding unsigned comment added by FCSTEAUABUCURESTISA (talk • contribs) 11:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Eternal derby (Romania)

 * Cas Liber, correct version is this. Read this article in the only sports newspaper in Romania. Clearly write that the competition was friendly, not official. There is statement of Stere, (Dinamo player) he says was friendly match. In this competition were used ONLY players arrive in trials like Daniel Munteanu from Universitatea Cluj, Mirel Rădoi in trial from Extensiv Craiova, Alin Savu from CSM Reşiţa, Alin Biţiş and Marius Onofraş. In an official match these players are unable to play becausethey never had contracts with Steaua. Understand?


 * Another thing, that user has vandalized page, erased players who scored in those matches (9, 15, 20, 22, 23, 24, 30, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41, 42, 47, 49, 50, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 67, 69, 75, 80, 82, 84, 86, 94, 95, 97), please answer me. Why you removed this informations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FCSTEAUABUCURESTISA (talk • contribs) 11:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I haven't removed it - I have just raised the protection so that only editors with accounts can edit. This way they can cite sources and discuss on the talk page. You can do it yourself very soon. Also, no one can edit as an IP on it now, so we know who is doing what. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Why you don't read this article? http://www.gsp.ro/fotbal/liga-1/nae-si-onofras-umiliti-de-ciini-in-ghencea-povestea-celei-mai-dure-infringeri-a-stelei-in-fata-lui-dinamo-211247.html

Daniel Munteanu, Alin Savu, Alin Biţiş those players never played for Steaua in a official game, they never signed contracts with Steaua, they was unable to play in an official match, do you understand? Cupa Ligii from 2000 was a friendly competition, read this article. http://www.gsp.ro/fotbal/liga-1/nae-si-onofras-umiliti-de-ciini-in-ghencea-povestea-celei-mai-dure-infringeri-a-stelei-in-fata-lui-dinamo-211247.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by FCSTEAUABUCURESTISA (talk • contribs) 11:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Grevillea laurifolia
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Would you be willing to nominate me for adminship?
I'll wait. Jinkinson  talk to me  00:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * afk on smartphone. Will get back to you a bit later today. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * add years, running total and (maybe) links to your dyk subpage and link it prominently from your user page Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean years since I created my account? Jinkinson   talk to me  00:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No no, I meant years the DYKs were created. They weren't on when I looked earlier (or maybe I missed them - no matter). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Right, back now. Create an editor review subpage and answer the three questions. I have nominated a few people but would only do so if I think there is a good chance of them passing. Failing RfA is not only a highly unpleasant experience but sets one back for trying in the future. I haven't looked much into your contributions but recommend the following regardless: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Ensure that when you review other nominations at DYK that you are thorough. I can't stress this enough (this is a key criticism of those who are unhappy with DYK - you want to be part of the solution not part of the problem). Check sources and ensure that there is no plagiarism and also that the material reflects what the source says. Assume good faith if you have to clarify or remind someone at DYK and keep up a positive note.


 * For brownie points, check Peer Review every so often - all folks who post there will be insanely grateful for any feedback. All articles need feedback from people familiar and unfamiliar with the material - the first category to help check for comprehensiveness, accuracy and weighting, and the second for accessibility and readability..as well as engagingness of the prose. Wikipedia is desperately short of reviewers. Again, maintain a positive tone -clear your mind, look at an article and think, "what would make this a better article?" and go from there. The beauty of Peer Review is that it is informal with no set structure. Just (hopefully) comments and collaboration. If you see something you're impressed with, reassure the editor you think they're doin the right thing.

More homework later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Another clarification question: do you mean User:Jinkinson/Editor review or WP:Editor review/Jinkinson? Since the latter already exists, I assume you mean the former but I'm not 100% sure. Jinkinson   talk to me  13:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh crap I hadn't seen that. Will take a look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's been a week and I"m getting tired of waiting. Could I please get an answer to my original question now? Jinkinson   talk to me  12:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I suspect that if you run now, you won't pass. I don't want to nominate anyone that I don't think has a pretty decent chance of passing. I strongly suggest spending three months doing some content editing - make sure when you review DYKs you do a detailed review - checking whether there is close paraphrasing and ensuring the article says what the sources say, and documenting it. As I said above, I recommend spending some time at Peer Review. If I see you do these things and maybe produce a good article (I am more than happy to assist with this), then I think a nomination has a good chance of passing, and if it does I am happy to nominate. If you disagree with this and get someone else to nominate you now or you self-nominate, I wish you luck. I hope (in that case) that my caution is wrong. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
I guess you are beyond barnstars now! Admire your solid body of work on TOL articles.

AshLin (talk) 02:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>


 * Kewl, thx. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank You!
With your help, the WINC (AM) was just promoted to Featured Article status. Together, we took a C-Class article, edited, added and made it a Good Article. We didn't stop there, we made it better and now it is a Featured Article. Whether you made one edit or twenty, you still helped and I thank you. :) - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 10:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Sultante of Singora
Hi there. This is a message for CasLiber, HamiltonStone, SturmVogel and Crisco. Thanks for your help and feeback re: the Singora article. It achieved FA status on Saturday.

I got a message today saying the article will now appear on Wikipedia's home page on June 4. This surprised me. I read somewhere that it usually takes several months for featured articles to make it to the home page.

I've cleaned things up a bit. CasLiber and Crisco noted that the section about Persians in 17th century Siam looked out of place. I've deleted this paragraph.

I've also re-jigged the lead and added:


 * 1. Alternative names / spellings to the Early History section.
 * 2. An explanatory note re: the foundation of the city in 1605.
 * 3. An explanatory note re: Sultan Sulaiman's declaration of independence in 1642.
 * 4. A second paragraph to the The forts at Khao Daeng section.

If you have time to briefly glance through it again, please do. I still feel the article can be improved prior to June 4.

Thanks again for your help. I've enjoyed doing this. I finished Oxford University almost exactly 30 years ago, so this has been an opportunity to cast aside some of the rust and dust that's built up over the years. Perhaps I'm not as good as I was, but I think I'm still just about okay!

I'll login from time to time. If you'd like a review, do please feel free to let me know.

Singora (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost/2014-05-21/Featured content
Hey, Cas! Could you review my descriptions for Caelum and Grus? No removing the praise, though: You two do good work. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Err, Grus is a crane...otherwise looks good :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ...Heh, oops. Shouldn't trust my Latin. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, if you ever want something from the Uranometria southern globe, please ask; I'd be delighted. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Aha! At some point I might get round to finishing Telescopium, Microscopium and Pictor....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * None of which appear on Bayer's map, or, at least, not on the main plate I have. Besides the Southern Birds, it's Indus, Hydrus, Apis Indica, Dorado, Triangulum Austalae, Chamelaeon, Musca, and Piscis Volans. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Acacia denticulosa
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Titanoceratops review
Sorry about your review on Titanoceratops. I had actually forgotten that it was not completed, and was away for just over the entire May Long Weekend, so I could not reply to your comments. I am not asking you to re-open the review, but yes please, could you send me the articles and give me feedback on my progress. The "Distinguishing Characteristics" section I find tough to modify, as there are extremely specific features that distinguish an animal, and sometimes those features cannot be described a different way from what the author has written. Any help with that section would be greatly appreciated.

On Zanabazar, I have pasted the article in my sandbox with a new modified version of the discovery section, and with the "Distinguishing Characteristics" section removed. How closely paraphrased is it now, and if it is better could you comment on the DYK page where the discussion was, at least, being held (There have been no comments for about a week or more last I checked). Thanks for your help - IJReid (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Move review notification
Because you participated in the most recent discussion regarding the proposed move of Hillary Rodham Clinton, you are hereby notified per Canvassing that the administrative determination of consensus from that discussion is being challenged at Move review/Log/2014 May. Please feel free to comment there. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Thopha saccata
This is a note to let the main editors of Thopha saccata know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on June 9, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at present, please ask. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/June 9, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Thopha saccata, commonly known as the double drummer, is the largest Australian species of cicada and reputedly the loudest insect in the world. Documented by the Danish zoologist Johan Christian Fabricius in 1803, it was the first described and named cicada native to Australia. Its common name comes from the large dark red-brown sac-like pockets that the adult male has on each side of its abdomen—the "double drums"—that are used to amplify the sound it produces. The adult double drummer is the largest Australian species of cicada. Broad-headed compared with other cicadas, the double drummer is mostly brown with a black pattern across the back of its thorax, and has red-brown and black underparts. The sexes are similar in appearance, though the female lacks the male's tymbals and sac-like covers. Found in sclerophyll forest in Queensland and New South Wales, adult double drummers generally perch high in the branches of large eucalypts. They emerge from the ground where they have spent several years as nymphs from November until March, and live for another four to five weeks. They appear in great numbers in some years, yet are absent in others.

You (and your talk-page stalkers) may also be interested to hear that there have been some changes at the TFA requests page recently. Nominators no longer need to calculate how many "points" an article has, the instructions have been simplified, and there's a new nomination system using templates based on those used for DYK suggestions. Please consider nominating another article, or commenting on an existing nomination, and leaving some feedback on your experience. Thank you. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Kentrosaurus
Would you be able to review Kentrosaurus? Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 15:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I've made one or two edits several years ago - I think that is allowable so yes will try and get to it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of T Ursae Minoris
Hello! Your submission of T Ursae Minoris at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 00:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Canis Major
Materialscientist (talk) 00:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Urodacus yaschenkoi
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

100-up!
Congratulations on becoming Wikipedia's second FA centurion, a truly magnificent achievement. I will work up the material you've given me with a view to next week's Signpost. Great work! Brianboulton (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Congrats! :) - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 22:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * thx both! yeah Brian I added a bit more - can't think of anything else I'd add right now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Banksieaeformis
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for T Ursae Minoris
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  14:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC) 00:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)