User talk:Casliber/Archive 50

2015 GA Cup - Round 2
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Philo Farnsworth
Would it be all right to remove protection from Philo Farnsworth? You indefinitely semi-protected it in April 2013, though it had only been protected once before. Conifer (talk ) 07:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC) - unprotected now, let's see how this goes. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Tricholoma columbetta
Gatoclass (talk) 11:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Page protection
When you previously protected the Russo-Georgian War, vandalism and edit-warring was reduced greatly and the article has recently passed GA review. However, as soon as it became GA, some old users tried to delete the contents that they didn't like. One of them was blocked and another one has not edit-warred yet. Can you fully protect the page for at least a month until things calm down? --UA Victory (talk) 21:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * A month is long in the first instance. Will see how we go. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that it seems too long. However the anniversary of the war is in August, so it's highly probable that soon others might show up and try to disrupt the article. Just to be on the safe side. Anyway, since it has passed GA, there's not much left to be added or modified. --UA Victory (talk) 22:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry to bother you, but can you please restore indefinite semi-protection which helped to eliminate vandalism and edit-warring by IP and new users? --UA Victory (talk) 05:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry to bother you again, but I've noticed that a related page Responsibility for the Russo-Georgian War which discusses the controversy and in the lead summarizes the most important content, has also been vandalized by pro-Kremlin accounts. Since January 2015, 46.35.240.67, Bobbydrake75, Bobdocker03, Ruina Loss and 194.32.29.1 have been deleting everything critical of the Russian government that they dislike. Two other users have reverted their edits, but they keep coming. I suspect that some of the IP addresses and the new accounts with single edits are the same person and in the long term they won't stop. I've already went to WP:RPP to request indefinite semi-protection to prevent such vandalism in the future, but another administrator declined the request. What do you think? --UA Victory (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * keep an eye on it and list again there in a few days if the vandalism continues and make sure you list the above like you did for me just then. I strongly suspect it will be it will be better for a clear consensus. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

A couple observations
I did not weigh in at the RFA for Liz, but I've been reading some of the discussion, (and the related links which lead to more links which lead to despair). I'm mentally formulating a suggestion to Liz, but I suspect I'm too late.

One of the reasons I'm fascinated is not so much the narrow issue of whether Liz should be an admin, but some of the broader issues affecting Wikipedia. This RFA is a microcosm of a number of issues.

Two things struck me when I read your oppose. I saw Liz's explanation for lack of content and it struck a chord with me. Then I saw your words which are almost exactly the same words I often use. I have decades of experience in financial economics issues (and many of our articles in that area are sadly deficient) but I almost never work on content in that area because "it feels like work". I came to Wikipedia to do something fun, not extend my work day and do it for free. That said, while little of my content work relates to financial economics, my contributions to that area are far more than zero. More importantly, while I have little content contributions in my formal area of expertise, I have enough content in other areas that I think I can call myself a content creator. I share your surprise that Liz has contributed almost nothing in that area. I appreciate and accept Liz's rationale for limiting her involvement in that area, but there is a vast difference between limited involvement and virtually none at all.

The second thing that struck me, which actually was the motivation for this post, is your observation that you've noticed an appearance for climbing the social ladder. It is troubling to me that such a concept is even possible. Let me clarify—of course I don't mean that it's hard to imagine that someone might desire to climb the social ladder – what I mean is that it is troubling that someone could climb a social ladder without being involved in content creation. I fully support the notion that people should get to work on what they want to work on. If someone wants to spend 100% of the time working on Pokémon articles, that will earn some disdain from some but not from me. If someone wants to spend most of the time building templates or doing other technical tasks, I'm all for it.

I can even accept that someone may have a desire to be an admin to work in drama areas and stay away from significant content contributions and I can support that, but only after I've seen some evidence that they had spent some time working on content creation. Maybe they won't like it, that's fine, but I support the notion that if you haven't done significant content creation you don't have an appreciation for what's involved in that makes you less of an admin.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yea-eah that's part of it....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Songs of Faith and Devotion GA review
I noticed that you placed the article on hold at first, but you then failed it. I went and saw that it was still on the nominations list, and I just need to know how to get rid of the "on hold" template on the talk page. Then the bot would remove the article from the list as failed. Do I just remove it myself or does the reviewer remove it? DannyMusicEditor (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Aah my bad. I forgot to remove the on hold template, which I have now doen. Should archive now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Nokuse Plantation
— Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Stub Contest scoreboard
There should be links to the users in the scoreboard so we can see what they do in Wikipedia. --Bakebread (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I forgot about that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Categories for discussion
Hi, thanks very much for helping with closures at CFD.

In case you were not aware, WP:CFDAI is the CFD Administrators Instructions page, and has reminders about supplemental steps in implementation. In this case, I had my eye on the ASCII-only categories and have finished the housekeeping (which, as expected, was somewhat fiddly because templates are involved). Kind regards – Fayenatic  L ondon 10:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * yeah, I was trying to get my head around some of that, plus got busy IRL. Anyway, will read it over...a learning process...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

TAFI List of articles purge, part II



 * Hello Casliber:


 * A discussion is occurring at the TAFI talk page regarding the removal of entries from the project's List of articles page. Your input is welcome at the discussion.

Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 17:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Beta Cephei variable
Hello! Your submission of Beta Cephei variable 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! David Eppstein (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

le grand empoisonneur de la Côte-d'Or
Thank you for Entoloma sinuatum! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * my pleasure. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

SMSSecure
Hello.

As probably the main contributor of the now deleted page "SMSSecure", I would have a copy of the source, please. I wish it to update "Asr/SMSSecure", and I would have history of the page too.

Thanks in advance, Asr (talk) 08:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * userfied for you now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Drake-class cruiser
I don't know if it makes any difference, but the inline refs were in the table, not the main body. This point should be clarified for next year.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * you're right/I missed that, body of text was whollly unreferenced. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Excellent, just be sure to let the other judges know about this clarification.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Advice on sources
Greetings, Casliber. Not sure if this is a good place to ask, but since you appear to work in FAC and also sent me the DYK credit for Lastarria, I wanted to ask whether the sources I used on Lastarria would be acceptable to use in a FA. (Note, I am currently not working on FAs of any kind) Thanks for answering! Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for De systemate orbis cometici, deque admirandis coeli characteribus
Gatoclass (talk) 07:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

FAR
Thanks for closing Baden-Powell. I did the extra steps at the WP:FA and WP:FFA pages. The article titles have to be added or removed manually because the bot doesn't handle that aspect. DrKiernan (talk) 07:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Damn...I knew I forgot something.....08:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Banded sugar ant FA
Hi, Casliber. I have noticed you have worked on a couple of Australian insect articles which are FA class, and I was wondering if you'd like to give the Banded sugar ant a read. I'm sure you are familiar with these fellas. All feedback will be greatly appreciated if you decide to view it. Cheers, Burklemore1 (talk) 11:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * something to think about, an article generally needs a minimum of three substantive supports (i.e. that the coordinators can see the reviewers have read and queried stuff etc.) to pass, so combining my maths and etiquette leaves me with a rough number of 3-4 articles to comment on/review when I nominate. I don't expect any sort of quid pro quo BTW, just always take a look at whatever interests you...cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll keep that in mind, cheers for that. I have worked on the sentence you have mentioned by the way, but I have left a question in regard on the FA page. Burklemore1 (talk) 13:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 51 Eridani, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eridanus. 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) 09:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Cool/thanks! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Suillus luteus
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Suillus luteus 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) 20:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Malvern Hill
Hello Casliber, I appreciate your earlier comments/edits to Battle of Malvern Hill. I was wondering whether you wished to revisit the article, in case you had any additional comments or concerns to voice. Thank you for your time and trouble. • Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah I was meaning to get back to it. I felt it needed another set of eyes and copyedit before I returned. Heading back now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Tks for your input & support.! &bull; Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 05:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Two crown
Two coronas one day: double congratulations for brightening, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Apropos of nothing but a loose word association, this came to mind....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Suillus luteus
The article Suillus luteus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Suillus luteus 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) 09:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Lord of Scoundrels
Cas Liber, can you please return to this review and add an icon, if appropriate? It can't get promoted without an icon, and sometimes icons are omitted because the reviewer still wants to check something. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Cas, I'm sure I remember a time when Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy was a thing, and Wikipedia only had three rules. How did we get from there to It can't get promoted without an icon in less than a decade? &#8209; iridescent 16:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * done now... that was a fair call.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Cas Liber, I appreciate it. Perhaps I should have said "won't" rather than "can't": without the tick icon the bot won't see it as approved and include it on the number of hooks approved per day table, and people looking to promote hooks will skim through the 275-odd nominations to find the ticks and probably won't see that any that have been approved without. Eventually it would get promoted, of course, probably because someone would have eventually queried you to see whether you'd really meant to pass it, and then arranged for the tick to be added if you weren't in the mood. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No it's all good. Keep being thorough as I certainly know it's one weakness I have. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Parser function error
In the article 9 Cephei, your changes caused an error message to appear in the infobox. I don't know enough about the syntax of the infobox template to identify the problem (the refs in some of the infobox fields? the value of 0.00 for the parallax?). Could you please look into the matter and fix the infobox? (I also note that you changed the name in the infobox from "9 Cephei" to "Nu Cephei", which doesn't match the article's title. Why? Does that need to be explained or emended?) Deor (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The parallax was 0.00 and I think that glitched it. It was a cut-and-paste of formatting and I missed changing the name. Both fixed now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Destubbing Contest 2015 requirements
Hi Cas Liber: From time to time, I have tried to upgrade selected articles classed as stubs in WP:Oklahoma. Last year I entered the stub contest, but found all of my upgrades were rejected, usually without explanation. So, I have been reluctant to enter this year's contest. Some were older articles that had been edited (by me or other Wikipedians) to add text, citations, etc., but never reclassified. These seemed to merit a rating of at least Start or C.

I am reluctant to waste anybody's time by entering the stub contest this year, but I would be willing to enter and submit some articles for consideration. I have some questions regarding the criteria for submitting entries, such as:
 * It appears that the minimum score for Stub articles listed in the Wikipedia Release Version Tool for WP:Oklahoma is about 275. Random check for character count using the tool identified by the contest rules, typically exceeds 500 characters. What is the minimum character count allowable for an entry?

Here are some specific articles I have looked at recently and which may clarify my questions:
 * Pierce Block Article begun December 11, 2011. Contained 1137 characters prior to July 1, 2015, Still classified as Stub. I am prepared to add considerably to the text, having found the actual NRHP application for this property.


 * Tulsa Fire Alarm Building Article started June 3, 2007. Contained 1540 characters prior to July 1, 2015. Still classified as Stub. Corrections during July-August 2015 have raised character count to 3462. Also divided into sections, added more citations and included notes. I think it merits at least a Start classification, if not a C.

Can you help me interpret the contest rules? Thanks a lot. Bruin2 (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Tracy Park Historic District Article started February 13, 2015. Contained 2847 characters before July 1, 2015r. Still classified as Stub. I think it merits at least a Start class.


 * Frustratingly, Pierce Block has 3 inline references, which means it can only be entered if 150 words or less or 4 sentences or less. If it had no inline references at all it could be up to 300 words. Sorry.


 * You're right about the Tulsa Fire Alarm Building and I have rerated it, though ratings below B class are generally pretty straightforward and there is no objection to the article improver rerating them. Ditto Tracy Park Historic District, so no one would object if you rerated that one yourself.

I thought we gave folks feedback as we went last year. I'll look at the old scoreboard and get back to you. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, the idea is to find a small article and expand it to over 1500kb - I guess we didn't clarify that bit enough. So, for example, Coldwater Creek (Oklahoma) (69 words) would qualify, just have to expand it. Have you seen the prosesize tool? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

missed Piskunov?
Hey did you miss the comment about Piskunov? Tks • Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops, yes. Will look at it now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Helmeted woodpecker
— Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Malvern Hill spotchecks
Hey Cas,

I was wondering if you'd be up for spotchecking at the the Battle of Malvern Hill FAC. Would be much appreciated. I can send the sources over email. Thank you, --ceradon ( talk •  edits ) 05:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Sure. I'll send you one so you can send attachments back Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey. Not sure if you forgot; could you send that email at your earliest convenience please? Cheers, --ceradon ( talk •  edits ) 00:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I did already yesterday. Will send another. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Still didn't get it. Can you post your email with the email template, and I'll take it from there? --ceradon ( talk •  edits ) 15:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

--ceradon ( talk •  edits ) 03:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey Cas,

I asked Nikkimaria for a spotcheck review. I hope you don't mind. It seems like you're busy, and my request was out of the blue, so I understand. Cheers! --cera don  00:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of 51 Eridani
Hello! Your submission of 51 Eridani 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! Lappspira (talk) 11:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for V380 Orionis
Gatoclass (talk) 16:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Podosphaera fuliginea
Hi. You might have got the pings and just chosen not to comment there, so feel free to ignore this if you want. But if possible, it would be great if you could weigh in at Talk:Podosphaera fuliginea. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 10:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pyxis
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pyxis 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 Reyk -- Reyk (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK promotion earlier today
Cas Liber, it's great that you're keeping an eye out and promoting preps to queues when you get the chance, but I thought you should know that when you promoted Prep 1 to Queue 1 earlier today, the fifth hook slot was empty. The prep set should have been filled before it was promoted. It's been fixed by admins since; fortunately, this wasn't one of those prep to queue moves when the main page promotion is overdue. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yikes! I scanned the list quickly for gaps but (obviously) must have overlooked that...will be more careful next time....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Notification of discussion
I wanted to be sure you saw this, because those pings aren't always reliable. RO (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Move
When you have a minute, could you move Boletus impolitus to Hemileccinum impolitum (page history needs to be saved after improper cut-and-paste move). Thanks, Sasata (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Jenks24 (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Sasata (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Noah's wine
Earlier today I copyedited Noah's wine. I had a question about including the name of the work from which a quote is taken in the text of the article, so I asked Rwood128 at User talk:Rwood128. Rwood128 made some edits. Then Godsy asked a question. I've been trying to find the place in the WP guidelines that tells where the reference goes. I've often seen "References go before punctuation", but I wondered if that included a colon. Can you either point me to the right place in the guidelines or answer Godsy's question? Thanks. Corinne (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Source check on Kill 'Em All
Hey Cas, can you do a source check on Kill 'Em All, an FA nominee of mine? The review page is here, but if you're not available, can you recommend someone who is? The nomination is two months old, and I think the source check is the only thing missing.--Retrohead (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok. hang on. WIll see if I get time today. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Stub contest is all very well but ...
Hi Cas,

I'm writing to you because I saw you were one of the editors organizing the stub contest. I've been editing a stub article since 20 August, but not because I knew anything about the contest beforehand. My editing of the stub was just a natural follow-on from another article I've been editing this summer - the one that was the source of a Barnstar on my Talk page. However, this weekend I added those two articles plus some others to my Watchlist, which is a feature I hadn't used since recently setting up my account. It was on my Watchlist page that the bulleted message announcing the contest appeared inviting one to find out more about it. So I did and noticed that there were actual human beings judging the contest rather than everything being handled by bots in the normal automaton way Wikipedia tries to communicate with its users.

The purpose of this message is to try and explain to a real live person who might actually care (and since you are putting your time and energy into organizing this contest I am assuming you are such a person) why such initiatives are a complete waste of time as long as Wikipedia continues to do little or nothing to arrest the admin abuse that pervades it. So I am going to talk you through something that has happened to me in the last 24 hours so that you can see things from a regular user perspective (i.e., someone on the outside just trying to improve an article or two, as opposed to someone on the inside with all kind of privileges or connections who may be removed from this everyday stuff, which I am assuming MAY apply to you).

Five or six days ago while editing a list of notable Manchester City players, I discovered that one of the club's WW1 era players was missing from the list and that a stub article for him had been created 7 or 8 years ago, and it still existed pretty much in that state. I could have simply added him to the list and carried on with what I was doing (and I now wish I had), but having read the stub I felt I could significantly improve it from my own prior knowledge of the player in my childhood. Once I got Googling around for reliable sources to cite in order to support what I wanted to write I found myself adding quite a bit more info than I had initially intended to add, and over the last few days what had originally started out as one or two hours of editing became a bit of a mini-project. I'm sure you can relate to how that happens!

Until two days ago I had been the only person editing this article for the past few days and after the first couple of days (8/20-21) I felt I was done with it. My intent wasn't to create a featured article or anything close but simply to leave this article in a much more useful state than I had found it. Then late on Sunday night (8/23) I read about the stub contest, as explained above, and felt that what I had been doing with this article met all the criteria - it had originally been tagged as a stub and I had removed that tag after doing my first large edit. So on 8/24 I decided to give it one more round of editing to polish it up further so that I could submit it in the contest at the end of the month.

After that sequence of edits on 8/24, the first edit in 4 days by someone other than myself was made - by the creator of the original stub who hadn't bothered to touch the article in years. At this point I felt I was pretty much done with what I wanted to do with the article. In fact, I had spent 3 or 4 more days on it than I had intended and wanted to get back to doing other things. Most of the changes he made I didn't disagree with (or I was ambivalent about), but there were three or four he made that I felt were pointless or incorrect changes so I manually reverted them with a clear ES explanation of why I was doing so. On his end, most of his edits violated WP:ES guidance in that his changes rarely matched what his brief and meaningless summaries claimed they were doing, and in such situations it is often impossible to determine from the actual changes why they were being done.

I didn't feel particularly strongly about the text I was defending, and most likely would have accepted his changes if he had provided an adequate reason for doing them, but without any such ES guidance they appeared to have been done mostly due to subjective POV rather than from a more objective NPOV basis, so I stood my ground. Having touched the article again to make that reversion I continued to make another round of edits to it, mostly to improve the cited sourcing because I had found better RS material, and in doing so I believe I reworded/reworked one or two of the four instances I had reverted (thus indicating that I wasn't particularly attached to that specific wording anyway).

When I looked at the article yesterday (8/25) one of the two remaining pieces of text I had stood my ground over had been removed by him again (his only edit) with a completely contradictory rationale for doing so provided as an ES (i.e., the ES he wrote supported the text that he was removing rather than justifying its removal). So I reverted it (this time actually using the revert function) with an ES explanation of how his deletion action contradicted his ES rationale for doing so. The irony of this situation is that I had already decided to change the text in question and had even started the edit as the last one of my previous night's sequence, but I couldn't locate the source I would have needed to cite to support it, so I aborted the edit and put it off to the morrow. If I had made that edit then the source of contention for what follows would have been removed and, presumably, any issue avoided.

Having done the reversion above, I was working on tracking down the source for the new wording I wished to introduce when I received what I consider to be a clear threat from this character, both in the edit summary that he subsequently did to the article, and also in the message he posted to the bottom of my Talk page. The last three edit summaries for that article are as follows:


 * 18:53, 25 August 2015‎ GiantSnowman (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,788 bytes) (-84)‎ . . (you have blatantly C&P from the source - do it again and you will be blocked)
 * 18:43, 25 August 2015‎ Me? I'm not really here (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,872 bytes) (+42)‎ . . (Undid revision 677766967 by GiantSnowman - if Frost confirms he's an outside left then no reason other than POV to remove text referring to him as a left winger that's a direct quote from the cited BantamsPast article supporting that statement.)
 * 11:33, 25 August 2015‎ GiantSnowman (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,830 bytes) (-43)‎ . . (the Terry Frost book confirms he was an outside left, which is correct terminology for that position at that time)

If this person had been just another user then his ES threat re blocking could possibly be dismissed as being merely uncivil braggadocio, but I have since checked and this guy has been an admin since 2006. Which IMO makes this threat very real and a blatant abuse of admin privileges, because even if my own actions had merited such a warning (which they didn't), this admin has a personal involvement thus a conflict of interest in this instance, so he should have recused himself and got another neutral admin to handle the situation.

How he ever became an admin I don't know because I would have thought that a demonstration of a clear understanding of WP:ES was a prerequisite before even being considered for the role. In fact, it's a prerequisite of simply being a considerate and productive Wikipedia user, let alone an admin. Almost all of his recent edits on that article contain ES that violate WP:ES guidance regarding things to always avoid:
 * Avoid misleading summaries. Nothing is more misleading than an ES that states something directly contrary to the edit being done, as in the one I reverted above.
 * Avoid vagueness. I think "wording" falls into the same category as "I made some changes"!
 * Avoid inappropriate summaries. I consider "do it again and you will be blocked" to be a personal attack of the highest order (since he is an admin and has the power to execute that threat).
 * Avoid incivility. I can't even start to list how many sections of WP:CIV that ES threat violates.

The whole issue of copyright violation is simply smoke and mirrors in this instance; because people that intend to do that NEVER cite the source of the text they are stealing so that they can be caught red-handed. At worst, all those couple of sentences lacked were a set of quotes around them because that's what I considered them to be, as I openly stated in my edit summary. All he had to do was add some quotes, or if he wished to be more obstructionist about it, delete the offending sentences with an ES stating they were being deleted for reasons of copyright violation. But a direct threat to block a constructive contributor who has just significantly improved an article was completely out of line and in violation of all the principles that Wikipedia repeat like a mantra, such as assuming good faith and being civil to other users. I have winessed out-and-out vandals on Wikipedia treated with more courtesy than has been shown to me by this particular admin.

Wikipedia seems continually baffled why promising or even established editors don't stick around or, if they do, become totally disenfranchised within the system. The reason is staring everyone in the face if you only care to look - most people don't like confrontation. While Wikipedia keeps giving admin privileges to confrontational clowns like this one no one is going to stick around, or join if they witness such activity from afar. In 90% of cases like the one I just described above the victim will just walk away and write off his or her time on Wikipedia as a bad experience, and no one will ever know why. Or if they do try and continue editing no doubt the same bully admin will be able to manufacture another false violation against them and use this as an excuse to make good on his threat. "Well I warned him but he continued to flaunt the rules so I had to block him." And if a user gets blocked in such circumstances you are most certainly not going to hear from them again because they can hardly advocate their case and push for some sort of independent review if they are blocked. Since the abusing admin is the one that documents the events that led to the unjustified blocking he pretty much has the power and wherewithal to write it all up in a way that makes himself look like a star and the victimised user someone that Wikipedia is well rid of.

In my own case, I'm not a fool who believes in playing against someone with a stacked deck. I can recognise a lose-lose situation when I see one. So I'm out of here. Because at my age I don't need this level of aggravation in my life. The only reason I'm sending you this message is because, as a judge of the stub contest, you would have been obligated to look at all the edits I did to this article anyway once I submitted it as an entry, so I'm hoping that you will not feel it to be an imposition to look closely at what went on here regarding admin abuse. Consider this message to be my contest entry if you prefer (because I'm now not going to be here at the end of the month to submit the diffs anyway), but the whole point of this message is to document an incidence of such abuse in context as it occurred, and from the perspective of the user that experienced it, so that the next time someone at Wikipedia says, "I wonder what sort of new prizes or contests we can come up with to encourage new users or more edits to be done?" there might just be someone still around at Wikipedia who can counter with, "Perhaps we should first solve all the confrontational problems we have inherent in the system - such as a "good old boy network" system of admin creation - that drives a large portion of the existing users away, and then maybe we wouldn't need to put our energies and cash into creating such incentives?" In short, Wikipedia should solve the actual problem instead of repeatedly burying its collective heads in the sand and continuing to only address the symptoms.

Thank you for your time in reading this far.

— not really here  discuss 19:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Ummm...okay. Let me look at the article and get a handle on it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Alright - you're right in that throwing the word "block" in for three letters is a bit of a stretch. Because you two are in a direct dispute he can't take admin action against you but would have to request that an uninvolved person take a look. Now, the issue is prose on wikipedia. Imagine as you will a graph with effusive, flowery prose at one end and dry as ^^#@@# at the other. It becomes a talent as to where a person's writing is on that so that it comes across as what is generally regarded as encyclopedic...sober and quasi-formal yet not too dry and still engaging. The changes he did to formalise the tone were natural and what I probably would have done as well to just massage it a bit. One of the best things I ever read on wikipedia was User:Tony1/How to improve your writing. hang on, will find an example Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Aaah here it is (sounds of ruffling through wikipages). Take a look at Billy Meredith - I thought this was engaging and well-written. A sprinkling of words to give it life but not too much.It's a knack you build on when editing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, the issue here is clearly admin abuse, but I'll return to that below. It is interesting that you should cite the "Billy Meredith" article as a standard to be aimed at for the following reasons: (1) He was a contemporary of Conlin's with Conlin being the replacement left winger brought in to replace the one MCFC had to sell due to MCFC's sanctioning for paying their players amounts over the then ₤4 a week (month?) salary cap set by the F.A., which in turn came to light as a result of the match-fixing scandal associated with Meredith which had caused him to be suspended and subsequently sold to MUFC. So the Conlin bio article is a very pertinent direct apples-to-apples comparison with the Meredith one, rather than if you had said take a look at some article on fish or fungi instead! I also see that you stuck your own oar in on that one back in 2013. :)
 * (2) It was one of many such articles I had in mind when writing the Conlin one in terms of where I wanted to get it, but you can only work with your sources and the facts pertinent to the player - which outside of tabloid sensationalism associated with him, are pretty much confined to the various periods spent at each club, the dates and transfer amounts of each move, and the number of appearances and goals scored at each club. In the case of Meredith there is a lot of off-field color that can be included - for instance, his championing of the players' union, the ever-present toothpick, the sour grapes accusation of an offered bribe by the defeated Aston Villa player, and so on, that all helps to make the article more engaging if properly executed. Similarly, in the case of Conlin, there's his battle with the MUFC full back, Bob Bonthron, that caused the crowd to riot and the Valley Parade ground to be closed; the Mr. Gumby styled knotted hankerchief on his head during the Arsenal game played in a heatwave; half the MCFC team withdrawing due to heat exhaustion; his drinking problem; and so on, that all can be included to similarly enliven his bio article. Hopefully, I achieved some of that. And you are right in assuming (if you did) that I left those couple of sentences intact for their color (although I wouldn't disagree that they should have been quoted), however it was more a case that having created the bulk of the article in my first edit, my subsequent attention was then directed to all the other areas of the bio that required further research, wordsmithing, and better sourcing rather than a quote I had properly sourced from the get-go.
 * (3) And on the subject of proper sourcing, if you take the trouble to read my Talk page, you'll see that much of it is a dialogue between "Oldelpaso" and myself where I am on his case re better sourcing of the "List" article, and he is one of the main instigators of that Meredith article. Without the efforts of users like him there would have been no article for you to have stuck your own oar in, nor for you to have held up to me as a goal to be achieved, but it is abusive and boorish users such as "GiantSnowman" that drive such contributors away. I rest my case.
 * As I stated in my initial message to you, the copyright violation claim is a red herring. That is just his way of vindictively "putting me in my place" because I had the audacity to revert one of his edits. I had every right to revert each one of his edits because each one of them violated WP:ES guidance, but I'm not that petty-minded, and I tried to work with what he did.  But the "fast and tricky" text was very pertinent to the subsequent embroilment between Bonthron and Conlin and I didn't want it removed without good reason. Because his edits almost always violate WP:ES neither of us really has any sound knowledge why he removed that text, but presumably it was done because he assumed it was my own POV I had intruded into the article, and it was done to give the text a more NPOV flavor. When I reverted with an ES that explicitly pointed out that the phraseology came from the source I was using and thus shouldn't be removed I played right into his hands with respect to a technicality (i.e., missing quotes) and he vindictively and confrontationally abused the situation. In no way can his actions be construed as assuming good faith. It is NOT my responsibility to second guess why an editor (an admin of ten years standing, no less) has changed my wording if he is too lazy or incompetent to follow WP:ES guidance, and I was perfectly within my rights to revert.
 * But in doing so I have crossed one of Wikipedia's "holy cows" by refusing to meekly accept portions of his incompetent edits. Because I reverted the bullying had to be taken to the next level by issuing direct threats. This goes on all the time on Wikipedia but it's not usually quite so crudely done threat-wise.  The threats are usually more veiled and implicit. IMO it's one of the reasons why most editors stick to only a few articles where they know the other interested parties that also edit those articles, rather than running around all over article space happily expanding stubs, where they might have to contend with an uncivil and boorish bully of an editor such as the one I've just encountered. If you lift up lots of rocks you don't know what kind of creepy-crawleys you might encounter residing there, so it's much better to work with the bug-free rocks you already know.  It's not just stub articles that this applies to, it's any new article you might wish to edit.  If you start trying to improve a mature article then quite likely lots of prior and current editors will crawl out to reassert their ownership too. However, mature articles that stay relatively static quality and content-wise don't attract the same level of attention as stub articles that stay as stubs and cause people such as yourself to run contests to address such lack of article growth. The recent actions of this particular admin is one of the direct causes of the problem that you are trying to redress with your contest. If you don't see that then I now fully understand why the problem is so pervasive and that it's never going to be resolved.
 * — not really here <font style="background:#AAD0FF;color:maroon"> discuss 23:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Tha'ts a lot to digest indeed. Let me think about some of this. I might post on the article talk page. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Here is some more info for you to digest, Cas. The following explains why this is a clear cut case of admin abuse despite your refusal to accept it as such.


 * "Misuse of administrative tools (WP:TOOLMISUSE)
 * Misusing the administrative tools is considered a serious issue. The administrative tools are provided to trusted users for maintenance and other tasks, and should be used with thought. Serious misuse may result in sanction or even their removal.
 * Common situations where avoiding tool use is often required:
 * Conflict of interest or non-neutrality – Administrators should not normally use their tools in matters in which they are personally involved (for example, in a content dispute in which they are a party)."


 * The above quoted guidance clearly states that an admin should not misuse his tools in a COI or non-neutral situation, which is exactly what was done in my situation. Because all of his actions were done in direct response to my reverting one of his edits. Not only that, they were all executed in less than ten minutes of my posting my edit reversion which indicates that it was a hot-headed and somewhat vindictive response rather than a carefully considered and rational one - see italicized text above (Admin abuse #1). However, even if he had taken his time and given the matter more exhaustive consideration, Wikipedia rules still forbid him from handling a COI situation himself. If this had been a genuine case of copyright violation - rather than one fabricated for personal reasons - then he should have recused himself and got another admin to handle it - Wikipedia guidance for admins is very clear on that point. (Admin abuse #2)


 * Nothing this admin has done in this situation has been correct. If you actually bother to read Copyright problems - which you should know and understand anyway as an admin yourself! - the applicable guidance for this particular situation is as follows:


 * "Repeated copyright violations
 * Contributors who repeatedly post copyrighted material (text or images) may be subject to contributor copyright investigations, to help ensure the removal from the project of all copyrighted material posted in contravention of policy. Contributors who repeatedly post copyrighted material after appropriate warnings will be blocked from editing, to protect the project."


 * I am assuming that the copyright warning banner he posted to my Talk page is the standard method for admins to issue the "appropriate warnings" mentioned in the text I italicized above. However, as you yourself pointed out on that page, such a warning is ONLY meant to be sent to editors that are violating copyright in a much more egregious manner than omitting a couple of quotes around text that has been diligently and responsibly accredited to the source material as I had done. (Admin abuse #3) Also, since I had cited the source of my quoted text so that it was properly attributed to its author, the couple of lines of text that I used could quite reasonably be considered to be one of fair use (see Non-free_content_criteria). The text wasn't included in the article by me on that basis - it was intended by me to be a direct quote from the source material - nevertheless, since it represented a very minimal portion of the source material I was using it could quite feasibly still be justified based on fair use principles.
 * Given the foregoing, all this admin needed to do was one of the following: (1) correct the quote by adding the omitted quotation marks it required; or (2) remove the text in question with an ES stating it was being removed as a possible copyright violation; or (3) rewrite / paraphrase the snippet of text in question so that there was no longer any issue (which he did, and which I have no problem with him doing). What I do have a big problem with is the ES he wrote to describe his edit: "you have blatantly C&P from the source - do it again and you will be blocked)". Of course I had copied and pasted from the source (or done the equivalent, since it was actually just a very close paraphrase of something I had copied from here) because it was intended as a direct quote, and any admin applying even a modicum of good faith and behaving in a non-confrontational manner would have realized that. (Admin abuse #4). Furthermore, since he is an admin and can make good on his words, the remainder of his ES regarding blocking is a very real and inappropriate unveiled threat that violates so many Wikipedia guidelines I don't know where to start. It violates WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:ES for starters. Users are not meant to threaten each other in edit summaries, so for an admin to use an ES to do so is even more egregious. ES are also an inappropriate method for an admin to deliver a warning or any other form of communication with a user, let alone a threat; such warnings and advice are meant to be posted to the user's Talk page. (Admin abuse #5).
 * Finally, the threat of blocking a user the next time he does something again is a threat that an admin is only meant to issue as a last resort after a sequence of repeated warnings which the user has continually flaunted (once again, see italicized text above), and NOT as the first time response to a minor technicality such as omitting quotes to correctly sourced and attributed material. In stating in his ES threat, "do it again and you will be blocked" the admin has skipped at least three levels of required escalation (assuming a "three strikes and you're out" approach) and that by itself is totally inappropriate use of admin privileges. (Admin abuse #6).
 * Given that I am not getting any protection from you in this situation, and all you have done is post to state that what the admin did was "technically correct" - user harassment and abuse of admin privilege is NEVER "technically correct" !! - I have reverted all contributions I made to that stub article lest this particular admin tries to fabricate any further far-fetched violations out of the work I had contributed so that he can find a justification for following through on his abusive threat. Wikipedia states that abuse of admin privileges "is considered a serious issue" but I am seeing no evidence at all that it really is. Your whole stance on this matter now only reinforces my perception of "cronyism" among Wikipedia admins, which goes to the very heart of my complaint. In your case it is not done out of maliciousness or any desire to abuse your power; far from it. It is your own very sweet and Pollyannaish approach to what has been perpetrated by one of your fellow admins, such that no user complaint, no matter how valid, is taken at all seriously, that allows the ones who do violate the rules to repeatedly get away with it without ever being sanctioned. Which is why the problem of admin abuse on Wikipedia with the resultant loss of contributing editors is never going to be solved, and also why the abusing admins feel even further empowered by what they do and get away with, which only makes them much more likely to repeat the offense in spades in the future.
 * — <font style="font-family:Segoe print;color:maroon">not really here <font style="background:#AAD0FF;color:maroon"> discuss 22:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for 51 Eridani
Gatoclass (talk) 20:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Banksia burdettii
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Boletus aereus
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Boletus aereus 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 FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK views
How to know the DYK hits, when they are on main page. Please tell. This article for example. Plus other two linked article's views also incresed that day. This and this. Krish |  Talk  07:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you are asking me. You know the tool already...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * But I can't figure out how many hits the dyk actually got. Krish |  Talk  09:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The bolded part of the hook was Mary Kom (film) which got 2,708 views so that's how many views the DYK got. Cowlibob (talk) 12:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * But, Priyanka Chopra's article got 6664 (double than regular) and Mary Kom got 2388 (triple than regular) hits. Is it possible that different people clicked only one link? Krish |  Talk  12:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Anything is possible I guess. All we know is raw page views and the day. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion at Talk:Podosphaera fuliginea - any final words?
Hello Casliber. I was looking for a move discussion ready to close and saw this one. But, on looking into it, it seems you were planning to come back later. Do you have more to say? If not, then it looks like it may close as Not moved on the strength of your last comment. The naming questions appear to be super-technical. If completing this work will take serious study then the move could be closed now without prejudice to a new RM in the future. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * (groan) knew I'd forgotten something. I think it is best closed as a no consensus now and we'll try reading up on the organisms...I don't care if someone else gets involved to tidy up the history as my getting involved and then moving/not moving would be like a supervote rather than admin close.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK queues empty
Cas Liber, I'm not sure whether you have time over the next several hours, but all the DYK queues are empty, and all the preps but one are full. The next promotion to main page is a good eight hours away, so if you can promote at least one prep to queue in the interim, that would be wonderful. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking care of it. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Hyperbolic geometry/Comments
You deleted Talk:Hyperbolic geometry/Comments as "Patent nonsense". It was not patent nonsense, it was a perfectly comprehensible comment on the article. possibly it should have been moved onto the main talk page, but I would oppose its deletion at an MfD, and it surely does not fit any of the CSD. Please undelete it. DES (talk) 13:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I was on my phone - hard to change tags. Will do so. Feel free to move. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Undeleted now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I have moved the content into the regular talk page, and converted the "comments" subpage to a redir. DES (talk) 15:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Boletus aereus
The article Boletus aereus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Boletus aereus 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 FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 31 August
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) 00:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Hummingbird cake page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=678719515 your edit] caused an archiveurl 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%2F678719515%7CHummingbird cake%5D%5D Ask for help])

WikiCup 2015 September newsletter
The finals for the 2015 Wikicup has now begun! Congrats to the 8 contestants who have survived to the finals, and well done and thanks to everyone who took part in rounds 3 and 4.

In round 3, we had a three-way tie for qualification among the wildcard contestants, so we had 34 competitors. The leader was by far in Group B, who earned 1496 points. Although 913 of these points were bonus points, he submitted 15 articles in the DYK category. Second place overall was at 864 points, who although submitted just 2 FAs for 400 points, earned double that amount for those articles in bonus points. Everyone who moved forward to Round 4 earned at least 100 points.

The scores required to move onto the semifinals were impressive; the lowest scorer to move onto the finals was 407, making this year's Wikicup as competitive as it's always been. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:


 * , who is competing in his sixth consecutive Wikicup final, again finished the round in first place, with an impressive 1666 points in Pool B. Casliber writes about the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy.  A large bulk of his points this round were bonus points.
 * , second place both in Pool B and overall, earned the bulk of his points with FPs, mostly depicting currency.
 * , first in Pool A, came in third. His specialty is natural science articles; in Round 4, he mostly submitted articles about insects and botany.  Five out of the six of the GAs he submitted were level-4 vital articles.
 * , second in Pool A, took fourth overall. He tends to focus on articles about cricket and military history, specifically the 1640s First English Civil War.
 * , from Pool A, was our highest-scoring wildcard. West Virginia tends to focus on articles about the history of (what for it!) the U.S. state of West Virginia.
 * , from Pool A, likes to work on articles about British geography and places. Most of his points this round were earned from two impressive accomplishments: a GT about Scheduled monuments in Somerset and a FT about English Heritage properties in Somerset.
 * , from Pool B, came in seventh overall. RO earned the majority of her points from GARs and PRs, many of which were earned in the final hours of the round.
 * , also from Pool B, who was competing with RO for the final two spots in the final hours, takes the race for most GARs and PRs—48.

The intense competition between RO and Calvin999 will continue into the finals. They're both eligible for the Newcomers Trophy, given for the first time in the Wikicup; whoever makes the most points will win it.

Good luck to the finalists; the judges are sure that the competition will be fierce!

, and  11:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pyxis
The article Pyxis you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pyxis 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 Reyk -- Reyk (talk) 12:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Earwig reports
Please note that Earwig reported possible copyvio on parts of those two submarine articles that I didn't write; my stuff was generally limited to the lede and description. Feel free to delete the parts in question as copyvio. I'm not much worried about mirroring; if/when I ever come back to them, I'll likely rewrite those sections entirely.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Source check
Could you possibly check my FAC, Featured article candidates/Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge/archive1? It is at the top of the 'Image/source check requests' list, and near the bottom of the FAC older nominations list. I am getting very anxious for a reason explained here. BollyJeff &#124;  talk  13:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I will review yours now. I recommend that you look at some other FAC, either an image/source check or just offering some comments/review (I don't mean mine, but any one that takes your interest) cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you, and yes I already gave a full review to three other articles while waiting for mine to finish. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  13:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * My bad - I should have realised those would have already gone through and been archived or promoted. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Vencore Labs page deletion
Hello Casliber- I noticed you did a speedy delete of our Vencore Labs page; with the cited criterion being "unambiguous advertising" and "no indication of importance." Could you help me understand your rationale here?

Might the advertising concern be around phrasing such as that we address "large-scale information and communications problems requiring deep knowledge of technology and operations" or that we have produced "more than 2000 patents across a broad spectrum of critical and emerging information and communications technologies"? If so, we can certainly tone that language down. Please note, though, that the long-standing wiki page of our prior owner, Telcordia Technologies, uses similar phrasing, such as their having been "a major architect of the U.S. telecoms system," a "pioneer" in many services, while supporting "complex operations missions." [|Telcordia Technologies]

For context re: indication of our importance, V'Labs is a ~$US70M technology research lab that has produced or contributed to thousands of patents in the telecomms and information processing arenas. We are engaged (contracted) in over 60 technology programs with the US government and have ~dozen large scale commercial clients. We also hold leadership positions in ~dozen global standards bodies. To avoid chest thumping, we do not state the revenue or program information on wiki. But, our involved user and industry communities are very much interested in our patent and standards bodies activities; thus, they are stated.

We are not a marketing-oriented company, and I am a relative newcomer to wikipedia. I honestly would welcome whatever coaching you can provide here.

With appreciation,

--CRVielguth (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Sutorius eximius
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

EMU FAC
Did you have any more points you wanted to raise at the Emu FAC? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I meant to come back to it. I will do so soon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Your revert on Antares
Please see the current discussion about seeking consensus on this issue at Talk:List of brightest stars.

Be grateful for your opinion in solving this, as cannot see a way forward. at the moment Thanks
 * Replied/replying there. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

ygm
Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Round 3
Delivered on behalf of WikiProject Good articles by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Smooth toadfish
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Smooth toadfish 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) 20:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Alphabear
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Apatosaurus
Hi. Could you look at Apatosaurus? LittleJerry (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Bit busy. Maybe later today or tomorrow. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to subscribe to the edit filter mailing list
Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) and  MusikAnimal  talk  18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

2015 Stub Contest - Closure
Hi Casliber, I notice that some of my submissions to the Stub Contest have no checks nor any explanation about why they are invalid. Some were checked or else explained as being on hold before the contest ended on August 31. I had made some other corrections before that date, but I can't tell if anyone looked at the corrected versions. I'd like to find out for my own information. Thanks,Bruin2 (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, been busy - Coldwater Creek (Oklahoma) was about 100 bytes too small on 30 August. Same with Boley Historic District. You need the tool. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Have you got one of these - the number of characters may be measured using this script (most accurate) or this one or this tool. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Just a quick note to say that I am unlikely to expand the item that has been set on hold in my section for the stub contest. I suspect that it won't be enough to qualify, so you want to put a reject after it and indicate my section complete then I am happy enough with that. Apologies for not contributing more. Great initiative though. Karst (talk) 11:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey Karst, we'll be running it again some time and keep an eye out as the next thing to do is the lucky dip of prizes. Any entry could feasibly win. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Cheers! Karst (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Your DYK approval for Death of Sandra Bland
I find it quite remarkable that anybody would proclaim--much less actually believe--that this language is "neutral":

"... that before her death in police custody, activist Sandra Bland posted, "In the news that we've seen as of late, you could stand there, surrender to the cops, and still be killed"?"

Indeed, an observer might see this as evidence that more oversight is needed in the DYK process. Had someone actually read the article being highlighted, this blurb would have never reached the front page. Eclipsoid (talk) 04:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Ummm, how would you word it neutrally then? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Halling paper
Hi Cas, is there any chance you have access to, and if so, would you be so kind as to send me a PDF? More bolete updating to do ... Sasata (talk) 18:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep - sent to pooter4 email just now newer email just now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Received – thanks! Sasata (talk) 15:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Suillus luteus
<b style="color:#00cc33">Harrias</b> talk 15:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Smooth toadfish
The article Smooth toadfish you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Smooth toadfish 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) 17:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Cortinarius cyanites
— Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Peer review request
Hi, sorry to bother you, but since your listed at WP:PRV, can you have a look at a peer review I opened, at Peer review/S.L. Benfica in European football/archive1. I have already request other user, but to "improve" my chances of it getting reviewed, I'm asking you too. I've research it and wrote it (c/e by other user), and I'll like to put it to GA, but first need some feedback, can you help?--Threeohsix (talk) 10:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Should get some time tonight. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Lovely bird
Thank you for meeting a colourful delicate creature, precious again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Lucky this was 7 and not 20 years ago. It took me so many shots to get a good one of the little critter! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * ... and for today's banksia, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is there a problem with this DYK update?
sstflyer 05:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Looks like fixed now. Was out and about. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to Edit
Dear Casliber, greetings!!! i tried editing the content many times but it still showing This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. Can you please help me in identifying the portion which looks like as advertisement. Need help. Webmaster.gitesh (talk) 07:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Rideshare advertising deletion
You deleted an article I created a while back by the name of Rideshare advertising. The reason you gave was two-fold. First, for being a hoax which does not apply. I am not sure that Forbes and the other reliable sources cited in the article would collaborate on such as hoax. It is a valid advertising term which is used by many reliable sources and I in no way intended for it to be a hoax. The second is that there was "no indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events)." This is an article about an industry term and is not about any of the categories listed.

The deletion was based on a request from another user to speedy delete the article. I am requesting that you restore the article as I did not have an opportunity to voice my opinion on the topic before it was deleted. Thank you for your consideration. --Cambalorng (talk) 01:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Submarine Earwig issues
All I ever did on the submarine articles was copy-paste the description, so the copy vios were there first. I'm also a bit surprised that so many articles are coming up as over the limits. I used the DYK tool to check the text counts and was a lot more careful to check them after the first few showed up. I remember running into a dozen or more articles that were one character over the limit and regretfully skipping them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The same is generally true for TAP, although I did find some copy-vio problems with the description in a few of the 20 that I just checked.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Earwig is a good screen - issue is when it does pick up a chuck of identical text and one has to figure out which was copied from which.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Hemiptera
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK for The Call (novel)
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC) Thanks for nominating this! I'm grateful that you noticed and hope that a few folks will come across the article and read the novel. ch (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Bootham Crescent
Hi, would you be interested in taking a look at Bootham Crescent, which I've taken to FAC? I see you reviewed York City F.C. when that was up way back when, and this article is part of the related featured topic. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Been a bit busy IRL but will see what I can do. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 17:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Freida Pinto
Hi, as someone who helped me during my first FAC would you be interested in having a look at this one too? &mdash; Vensatry <font color = "Indigo" >(ping) 16:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Been a bit busy IRL but will see what I can do. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 17:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Email
Hi, I received a strange email from your address earlier in the month, and I only just now saw it in my junk mail folder. Did your computer have a virus that accessed your address book or is someone sending spam with your email address? Viriditas (talk) 08:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep. A trojan. Fixed now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Queue promotion
If I have an inuse template on a set in prep, it means I am preparing it for promotion. Please don't promote a set when I am still working on it. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 17:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, i thought that was an old template. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 17:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Is it right now? want me to revert or something? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 17:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's fine now, thanks. Gatoclass (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, just waiting for a plane...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 17:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, it was a bit of a rush to me too :) Gatoclass (talk) 17:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Prior Park Landscape Garden
Gatoclass (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms arbitration case opened
You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 12, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC) on behalf of L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Ficus platypoda
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Cortinarius glaucopus
Gatoclass (talk) 10:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Today's featured article/October 19, 2015
How rare is the tree form? Corinne and I are working on this one; if it's really rare, I might yank that mention. - Dank (push to talk) 02:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah...just call it a shrub...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * One other thing ... I think if we say that it's a vulnerable species without a link or an explanation, readers might have something like the Regional Red Lists or the IUCN in mind. "Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999" is too much of a digression at TFA. If it's reasonably accurate to say that it's listed as vulnerable by the Australian Department of the Environment, that would work. - Dank (push to talk) 23:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Or just listed as by Australian Government. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Nice, the superstitious one, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case
''You are receiving this message because you are on the notification list for this case. You may opt-out at any time The Arbitration Committee has enacted the following temporary injunction, to expire at the closure of the Genetically modified organisms'' arbitration case: For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC))
 * 1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to to genetically modified organisms and agricultural biotechnology, including glyphosate, broadly interpreted, for as long as this arbitration case remains open. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
 * 2) Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day within the topic area found in part 1 of this injunction, subject to the usual exemptions.
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Template:Did you know nominations/Arabari
The reference issues has been dealt with, and the problematic sentence has been edited. If you think it all now makes sense, then can you resume (and finish) the review? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Elysia grandifolia
Gatoclass (talk) 07:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Suillus bovinus
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Suillus bovinus 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) 10:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Frank Sinatra
Left a comment there just in case the ping didn't work, thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Buçaco Forest

 * 1. Added Buçaco Forest.
 * 2. Updated link in List of World Heritage Sites in Portugal.
 * 3. Still yet to complete Fauna section.
 * 4. Emailed Dr Milena Matos to let her know it's online.
 * 5. Will request peer reviews from Milena and Dr. Dean Nicolle (Currency Creek Arboretum) in due course.

Singora (talk) 22:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Cool. Will take a look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow, that's a nice new article, there was me thinking Singora was just a despicable, odious troll who attacks FA contributors on Wikipediocracy! Why doesn't he stick to producing good content instead of acting like a disgruntled loser on that site? Hmm.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Ummmm, yeah. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Banksia caleyi
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Banksia caleyi 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) 12:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Kim Gwi-Hyeon
Just a quick question about Talk:Kim Gwi-Hyeon. moved Kim Gwi-Hyeon to Kim Gwi-hyeon which of course moved the talk page. They then blanked the Talk:Kim Gwi-Hyeon and tagged it for deletion, which you did. I have been refusing several of these as to my mind they are valid redirects. I was just curious if there is a reason to delete redirects like that. As far as I can recall redirects like that are usually left in place to help the reader. See User talk:Sawol. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Prior Park Landscape Garden
Gatoclass (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Surf bream
Gatoclass (talk) 03:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Today's featured article/October 29, 2015
It's such a pleasure to get TFAs where there's little or nothing to do. Feel free to fiddle with it. - Dank (push to talk) 15:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * cool....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK
Hello! Your submission of Baryonyx 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! North America1000 01:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK overdue (and it's Ada Lovelace Day!)
Cas Liber, I'm hoping you're still around and able to promote a prep or two. The next two preps filled are for Ada Lovelace Day, and the more the first is delayed, the less time the second will actually spend on the main page during the day itself. Thanks for whatever you can do. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Reviewing help
Hi Cas, hope you're well. Looking for something different to do and saw this post here on one of my lurking escapades. Do you still need a hand over there? Fuebaey (talk) 02:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes please! If you look on the entries page you'll see that we have one person left to mark. I am ok to do the expansions but if you could examine the one last contestant's entries (Thine Antique Pen) using Earwig's Copyvio Detector to screen for copyvios. That would be great. I have to examine a couple so start from the bottom and work up, ticking off which ones are fine and which ones you think one of us should take a look at. I'll come through after and check the expansions. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, if you are really keen, all articles still marked as stubs (that have been expanded) should actually be Start or C class, so feel free to regrade any you come across. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay. I glanced over a few of the last submissions, and noticed that all the Megachile stubs (#503 - #2003) are the same. Literally. Copy/paste, edit in species name. Digging a bit, it may have involved some form of automation (1,500 edits in just under six hours). Would there be any point in checking every one of those if it's practically the exact same text? Fuebaey (talk) 04:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes - thing is, it is true that one could do loads of species like that legitimately as long as the actual data is good. For instance, the key would be to ensure that the bare facts are actually correct (for instance, that some particular bee is 2 cm long and has black and yellow body and lives In, say, Botswana or whatever.) and are faithful to the sources for that page (and aren't a copyvio of a licenced page). If that is the case then all good, but if the facts are actually mucked up then that is a big problem. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My bad for not being clear before. What I meant above was, in terms of copyvio checking, is there a need to go through each of those 1,500 articles if Earwig is going to give the same result? About the content, while the information seems correct for the genus Megachile, the sources don't mention the actual species. I'm not sure if that's relevant here though. Fuebaey (talk) 06:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hang on...that sounds weird....I'll take a look....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * (facepalm) - ok, look, skip all the Megachile articles. and go down from SM UC-64 downwards...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Suillus bovinus
The article Suillus bovinus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Suillus bovinus 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) 03:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Banksia caleyi
The article Banksia caleyi you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Banksia caleyi 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) 03:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

FYA
Talk:Barysaw. 80.193.31.89 (talk) 16:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Alloxylon pinnatum
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Alloxylon pinnatum 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) 19:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Allamanda schottii
01:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello!
Hello there! I can understand your busy schedule here and it's so freaking weird that I have posted this request on many talk pages only to be rejected every time. Could you look at this article and give it a copy-edit? Again, I know that you're busy but it won't take more than perhaps 20 minutes as it is not a very long article. Thanks for your time and do reply, please. --  Frankie <font color="#6E7F80">talk 11:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have done a bit but I need to sleep now. My free time is patchy over the weekend. Will see if I can get back to it. Good luck if I can't. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * K thanks but if you do wish to copy-edit, please inform me when you are done. --  Frankie <font color="#6E7F80">talk 12:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, again! I just wanted to ask if you would like to continue your excellent copy-editing (some trimming that you have done are simply amazing). It's okay if you're not willing to. I am only asking because I might approach someone else in case you don't want to continue. Regards. --  Frankie <font color="#6E7F80">talk 12:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok gimme a sec. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Eldfell
I note that you have tagged this article as being not a good article. You have said "There are suggestions below for improving the article." and yet there are no such suggestions, neither is there a link to your assessment. Can you please supply said suggestions, since otherwise there is n way to improve the article with a view to attaining good article status. Op47 (talk) 13:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * For some reason the review (at Talk:Eldfell/GA1) wasn't transcluded anywhere when it updated. I rejigged it manually. Main thing is inline referencing. I will tag and if you do that then I will be happy to prioritise re-reviewing it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * - would be good to format the references and see if material from the further reading can be incorporated and cited somehow. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/The Red Throne
Cas Liber, a QPQ that you requested has been supplied for this nomination. Can you please check it and continue/finish the review? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Great/thanks for alerting me. Will check now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Views not updating
Hi. How come the last 10 days are updating here? I can't see how well it did at DYK in getting views. — <b style="color:#595454">Calvin999</b> 16:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The pageview counts stopped being updated on 11 October. The raw data is still available if you really feel the need, but be aware that it's tabulated by hour so you'll need to add it up to get the total figures. Personally, I wouldn't be in the least sorry if it never returns; the number of legitimate uses for pageview stats can be counted on the fingers of one hand (or more likely, on the fingers of one finger, as the only legitimate use I can see is "finding high-traffic articles which have poor coverage"), and doing away with it might end the "my article got more views than yours!" pissing-games. The VPT thread is at Village pump (technical)/Archive 141 if you want to complain about it. &#8209; iridescent 16:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, so, we can't find out how many views it gets during it's allotted slot? Mine never really got more than a few hundred fews but I found it interesting. Why has the plug been pulled on it? — <b style="color:#595454">Calvin999</b>  17:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It was never an official part of the MediaWiki software—it was a tool User:Henrik built which aggregated the raw hourly data published by the WMF (which, per the link above, is still available). Henrik hasn't edited for well over a year, so is presumably not going to fix whatever broke. If you asked very nicely, you may be able to convince her that the WMF ought to create their own version of this tool, but since it would be donor money being spent you'd need to convince her that there's enough demand for the statistics to justify the WMF spending time and money incorporating it into MediaWiki—per my previous comments, I'm not at all convinced the use case for pageview stats really exists other than the relatively specialist areas of identifying problematic pages with a high readership. &#8209; iridescent 18:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Aaww I dunno, I find them intriguing and have seen some interesting view-spikes - e.g. this spike possibly due to two people dying here in Australia. I find it surprising that the WMF would not allocate anything at all to pageviews....or maybe I don't Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, the spikes can be interesting, especially when something you expect to be of marginal interest turns out to have a huge readership (at one point, Daniel Lambert was in Wikipedia's top 1000 articles by pageviews, and—as I may have mentioned once or twice—when William Etty was at DYK he comfortably got more pageviews in his eight hours than the TFA did in 24). But, assuming nobody else is willing to write the script voluntarily (of the regulars, I suspect MZMcBride is the only one who could take up where Henrik left off), it's a case of persuading the WMF that it's important enough to justify including in the MediaWiki software. Given that the raw data dumps still exist, it's IMO hard to justify the considerable effort it would take to tabulate all that data into 24 hour periods for 5 million articles, every day. &#8209; iridescent 19:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * But if a volunteer like Henrik just did it, surely it isn't that difficult...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If it's not difficult, what's stopping you? Practically, the issue isn't the coding; it's the server drain of tabulating 24 individual "hour" entries times five million pages (or 24x if we're going to do the stats for all pages, not just articles), day-in-day-out. Just downloading and uploading the data involved would put significant strain on a typical connection, let alone the actual calculating. And multiply that figure by a couple of hundred, since if en-wiki does it every other project will want a slice of the cake and complain if they're not given it.a &#8209; iridescent 19:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * But it's been doing it for how long? — <b style="color:#595454">Calvin999</b>  19:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Intermittently since 2008, but to re-emphasise it is not us that is doing it—it was done by Henrik, and Wikipedia included a link to him on article history pages as a service to readers. We have no control over what he does or doesn't choose to host on his servers. (The raw code that generates the stats is at https://github.com/abelsson/stats.grok.se, if you want to take on the job of hosting it, but given that this is the WMF we're talking about I wouldn't hold your breath that they're going to help you with the cost of downloading and processing terabytes of data every day.) &#8209; iridescent 21:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah...I am not savvy with all this stuff...well, let's see how it unfolds...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi. The most relevant task is T44259. What iridescent said is mostly correct: it's a lot of data to process. It turns out that Wikipedia is pretty popular! Dealing with millions of pages isn't exactly a small matter. If you want, you can download enwiki-20151002-all-titles.gz, which is a compressed file containing all page titles on the English Wikipedia as of 2015-10-02, separated by newlines. Even compressed using gzip, the file is about 193 megabytes. When files get to be this large, you can't just open them in Microsoft Word or Excel, you have to use tools that will only read part of the file and/or you have to process the data in a stream. It's doable, and the technical part isn't really that bad, as iridescent also notes, but it requires a considerable amount of disk space and bandwidth for an indefinite period of time. All the while, you'll only ever encounter complaints and feature requests on-wiki. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Snefru
...is under attack by an IP-troll. Please protect the article. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)