User talk:Invertzoo/Archive 33

ARCHIVE PAGE 33: September 2010

The Signpost: 6 September 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back
It's good to have you back, Susan! Did you enjoy your vacation? I hope you are well. I'll submit Strombus canarium to GA review soon. But before I do that, I'd like to know your opinion about the article! Best, Daniel Cavallari (talk) 23:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

PS: I've found the original description of S. canarium by Linnaeus in Systema Naturae. It reads as follows:

S. testae labro rotundato brevi retuso, spiraque laevi.

Though I have no idea what the meaning is... Daniel Cavallari (talk) 12:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It's something like "Strombus (S.) with a shell (testae) having a retuse (retuso), short (brevi), rounded (rotundato) lip (labro), and (-que) a smooth (laevi) spiral (spira). (Some of these words, particularly 'spira', are probably technical terms here that might be more appropriately translated for the context, but that's the gist of it.) —Muke Tever talk 23:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Susan thank you for all the prose improvements you've been doing in the article. You really know how to add some flavor to the text, and make it more palatable to the average reader. Honestly, this is something I find really hard to do. But then again I'm learning with you! Daniel Cavallari (talk) 21:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It was a while
Hello, Susan. I am going to write a new article. Will you be able to help to copy edit it, or I should look for someome else to help me out? I will check on your response here. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Mila. Can you tell me what the article is about? I think I may possibly have the time to help you, if I can do the revision reasonably fast, depending on how much work I think it needs.


 * Fairly soon (I don't know exactly when) I will be helping Daniel with a GA submission, and then after that with a different FA submission. Plus I am doing some copyediting at home for my boss at the museum. Plus also working on my next two shell papers! I need 3 or 4 of me! But I often enjoy helping you with your stuff, so if I think I can, I will. First off, what is the subject?


 * Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 18:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Susan, here's the article User:Mbz1/Duel at Lake Merced. I copied most of it from public domain books, so it has to be re-written in my own words. I will re-write it in a day or two, and then I would need somebody as you to fix my English. So now you know, what the article is about. Will you help me, if you have a time? Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I can try to help you with this one. The only thing is, it is not at all easy to rewrite public domain prose completely enough to have it be clear of any copyright issues or plagiarism, as I am sure you know. Rather than attempting to tweak each individual sentence one by one (which often does not really work), it is best to read the original prose, understand it, and then start fresh, writing it from scratch, completely in your own words. Also, just to let you know, I am still a bit too much on California time, so I am not completely adjusted to being back yet, so forgive me if I sometimes seem a bit out of it or easily feeling overburdened. Best to you, Invertzoo (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no copyright issues for public domain texts (some articles that were copied and pasted from PD text became feature articles), and there's no plagiarism issues, if the attributions are made, but I will re-write it from scratch, and let you know, when and if I will. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh yes you are right, I am obviously still jet-lagged and half-brained. I am sorry. Let me know when you are ready for me to work on it. Invertzoo (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Can I get relisted on the Editorial Cartoonists List
I believe I was erroneously omitted from the list, thanks. I contacted you personally and received no response back. 24.217.145.237 (talk) 06:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)MJ

The Signpost: 13 September 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The real problem?
Hi Susan. I am starting to wonder why we all want this bot to continue. Am I either missing something obvious, or completely daft? It seems, from what I am reading, that although the bot didn't make many errors, out 15,000 bot-created stubs, about 300 articles had a classification change in the last 6 months. The resulting work in fixing that was 252 edits to the Unaccepted page, and a great many page moves, redirects, edits to synonym lists, taxoboxes, etc. That must have added up to a lot of hours, right? I'm curious how many hours.

I'm starting to believe that this isn't about WoRMS or the bot. It is about fluctuating taxonomy, and our inability to cope with the workload imposed by thousands of new articles, regardless of how they are created, or the source of information.

Also, looking at the unaccepted page, I see a mish-mash of actions, from synonyms discovered, to genera being corrected, to whole species misidentified. Am I right in this appraisal? If so, Ganeshk is right. There is no way to automate taxo changes. (I always thought taxa in flux meant whole family names changing, like big DNA discoveries.)
 * ..........Note: None of the unaccepted things are species misidentified, they are all taxonomic or nomenclatural issues. Invertzoo (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Am I way off on all of this, and what can be done? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Basically I disagree that changing taxonomy is the "real problem" here. A significant part of the failure to achieve consensus over the bot issue is the difference in practical Wikipedia philosophy between the "Eventualists" and the "Immediatists" . Please do read these two pages if you are not familiar with these two approaches. The argument in favor of all the bot articles is an Eventualist argument.


 * Actually there are a lot of different issues involved in this discussion, all of which could be debated ad infinitum. And in reality some of these questions should be discussed at the "Tree of Life" level, because they apply to all of biology coverage on Wikipedia, not just the gastropods!


 * Anyway, yes, in the big picture, gastropod taxonomy is being updated over time, and these changes can happen at any level from subspecies to class, although it all happens rather unpredictably. However, getting the details of the changing taxonomy and nomenclature "right" (which only means right for the time being, according to one or more authors) is not the be-all and end-all of information.


 * In reality all kinds of very valuable standard references used frequently by professional malacologists are print sources (such as Abbott's American Seashells 2nd edition 1974), where all of the taxonomy and nomenclature is frozen in time from 36 years ago. Nonetheless that book is invaluable and perfectly intelligible. Only since the advent of online databases can anyone even dream about keeping a vast number of entries totally current and fully updated in terms of taxonomy and nomenclature. And perhaps it is still only a dream: to keep up with every small change in taxonomy or nomenclature that appears in the scientific literature is almost an impossible task for any group of people, not just us. However, I think it is vital to realize that information on a species or genus is still very valuable and useful and applicable even when the names used are out of date. I simply don't see those things as major errors or unacceptable for Wikipedia.


 * JoJan is the one who is attempting to fully fix up that group of articles before he goes on vacation. He is the one who knows how long that is taking him, if he is counting the hours, which he may not be.


 * But to be honest not to minimize all the work JoJan is currently doing, which is great, I am not sure we should in any way accept the idea that every article (even a stub) has to be perfect or it must not exist at all! It seems to me that is contrary to the whole spirit of Wikipedia, which is and always will be, a Work in Progress.


 * Invertzoo (talk) 19:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * A useful P.S. is the essay: Don't demolish the house while it's still being built


 * That's very encouraging news. What I am hearing from you is that these stubs are worthwhile even though the taxonomy might be out of date. And, that taxonomy is not the only important thing. If a percentage of the stubs gets improved over time with information that will never change, such as image, description, etc. that is good.


 * However, if my arithmetic is correct, there is an approximate annual 4% per change in taxonomy. That's seems a lot to keep up with. If 4% of these potential stubs receive improvements, then I can see the value of the stubs staying in balance. If not, considering the stubs only contain taxonomical classification, authority, then a cumulative 4% per annum would contain no useful information other than the authority.


 * I agree that having the stubs satisfies eventualist tendencies. I never heard a response from anyone to my suggestion of a nomen dubium disclaimer tag on these stubs. I think such a tag could satisfy immediatists.


 * I might ask JoJan about annual hours of maintenance per 10,000 stubs.


 * Did you see this.? The discussion keeps shifting to the bot. My mistake for naming the thread like that. ha ha.


 * I think it would be wise for everyone to separate this matter into three parts:
 * (extra wording added by Invertzoo (talk) 22:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC))
 * bot-created articles: a intrinsic problem or an important asset?
 * value of stubs: how worthwhile are stub articles while they sit there waiting to be expanded or have images added?
 * issues related to management of a large volume of gastropod articles when taxonomy and or nomenclature changes: how to we do this, and to what extent is it essential (or not) to try to keep up to date with this?


 * Thanks for the thoughtful reply.


 * Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is challenging to constantly update taxonomy and nomenclature, and it has to be done by someone who understands what they are doing. (Actually there is a problem in general with any and all kinds of routine clean-up and maintenance; it seems that no-one likes to do that stuff, and so it usually just gets ignored in favor of things that are more entertaining and glamorous. So far I have done far more clean-up than anyone else in the project on our previous pre-existing stubs and other articles, although Daniel has also worked very hard on that.) However as I said before, even articles where the taxonomy and nomenclature are not updated are still useful, and in my opinion should be retained.
 * As for your "Nomen dubium" idea, we certainly can't use that phrase, which has a very precise and narrow scientific meaning. However we could maybe try to come up with a tag or template that says, well, what did you have in mind Anna... "The taxonomy or nomenclature of this taxon may not be up-to-date" ? S hounds a bit lame, but perhaps something better could be thought up, but then what would determine which articles get this tag?
 * Best wishes to you as always, Invertzoo (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry. Nomen dubium is the wrong term, but you get my drift. Maybe "As the taxonomy of many gastropods is in flux, this taxon may not be accurate", or something like that. By default, maybe all gastropod articles should have this, with it being removed when a group is confirmed stable.


 * As for the other issues I brought up above, I am still looking for answers here, and on the BRFA page. I think that the bot can make error-free articles. I believe in stubs per your comments on Tree of Life thread. But, I would still very much like a good forecast on how 100,000 stubs with 4% annual taxo change will be managed. That's the real crux for me. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the kind of tag you suggest would not be useful, because to some degree or another it would apply to every one of the taxa articles in the Project, and worse than that, there will never be a point where the taxonomy of one group would be "confirmed stable", not in our lifetime anyway. It's all provisional and the changes stay "stable" for varying and unpredictable lengths of time. Yikes! Sounds crazy but that's biology for you! And as for how the 4% (or whatever percentage it really is), my suggestion would be that as many of them as we can fix, we will fix, and we will try our best to make that particular kind of clean-up a high priority, that is, if the members of the project will actually muck in and learn how to do it, and then will put some real time in doing it on a regular basis every year. The problem is, that on Wikipedia we are not paid staff, so people will only do what they want to do, and you can't make them do clean-up if they don't want to do it. Even when someone does it, probably someone else will need to check what that person did and so on... But as I said, I don't really consider somewhat out of date taxonomy and somewhat uncorrected nomenclature to be a horrible problem or some kind of deal-breaker, so I don't see that the 4% immediately has to be corrected. As the Project attracts more members and hopefully more expert people each 6 months, I am assuming it will happen that some new people will actually want to tackle one whole family or superfamily and fix up the taxonomy and nomenclature, especially if the stubs are already all there. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 01:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC) ( this was written two or three hours ago. I hit save but I only now noticed that it did not go in because of an edit conflict. Invertzoo (talk) 01:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC) )


 * In our lifetime? Oh my. I distinctly remember you saying: "Anna, this is an exact science. We will have all gastropod taxonomy nailed down for good within a couple of days." I'm afraid I'll have to hold you to that.


 * We are not paid staff? Oh my again! I just sent my bill to Jimbo. I distinctly remember him saying: "I will personally pay all of you $135.20 per hour. Don't worry, I'm good for it." I'm afraid we might have to storm his palace.


 * But seriously, what you say about the template makes sense.


 * It sounds like a certain amount of stubs is manageable. I suggest that we wait to hear from Ganeshk and JoJan with some estimates and data regarding the short list below. Then then we can decide how many stubs we can cope with based on current number of participating members and their capabilities. Then we can make a solid proposal to BRFA. What do you think? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Anna, the bot can help with the taxonomy changes. It is better for it not to make the changes directly on the articles. We can let the bot create the pages on the Wikipedia namespace. A human can then move the changes over to the article space. This will cut down the time spent per article significantly. — Ganeshk  ( talk ) 23:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Very good news. If you and JoJan can provide some data on maintenance, then few reasons will remain to oppose the bot.


 * There are strong reasons in favour of the existence of the stubs. We can prove that the bot makes accurate stubs. There is little question about the reliability of the source. All that remains is to show that we have a plan for maintenance, and that it is feasible in terms of time. Can you and JoJan provide some rough data on:


 * method of finding changes in taxonomy
 * procedure of making changes to articles
 * total work hours per 10,000 articles
 * annual rate of taxo change


 * If the above can be answered satisfactorily, then opposition will be fresh out of arguments, and the bot should be approved. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break
Well it's some sort of an idea on how we should proceed and what kind of offer we should make (maybe), but you will have to see whether Snek agrees with it or not. He may not agree, depending on how restrictive it is. You are talking about how many new stubs we can cope with each year? And how long it will take us to catch up on the thousands of new ones that we already have? That assumes that the stubs need careful checking. Snek may argue against these ideas, and I may agree with him, using an argument as follows:


 * We completely agree that the bot was not authorized to create all these new stubs (other than the Conus stubs.) However, this was a genuine oversight and misunderstanding on our part, not a deliberate flouting of policy. We should not be subjected to punitive measures or restrictions as a result of this unfortunate misunderstanding. Any new suggestions as to how we should proceed at this point in time should be thought out as a completely separate issue.


 * 1. There is consensus at "Tree of Life" that species are intrinsically notable and that species stubs are valuable to have for the reasons suggested: easy expansion, easy and fast adding of images and other info.
 * 2. There is no Wikipedia guideline against stubs or against the number of stubs a project should have.
 * 3. Thus there is no formal limit to the number of stubs a project should currently have, assuming the stubs are not full of errors. (In any case we are generating stubs by hand every day and have been for several years without a formal checking system in place for content errors; this is commonly the case in the rest of Wikipedia.)
 * 4. At the Project we check the content of a planned family of bot-generated species stubs carefully before they are produced.
 * 5. There is no solid evidence that any of our new bot-generated stubs have genuine errors in them, and if a few of them have things that some people argue are less than ideal, these are human choices, and were not due to the bot. Plus they are a matter of opinion, not fact.
 * 6. If one word is considered seriously misleading, or if quote marks did need removing around one word in a large batch of stubs, that could be changed by automated software in a matter of seconds.
 * 7. If taxonomy on the family level or below subsequently becomes somewhat out of date due to revisions by experts, or if the nomenclature has been tweaked subsequent to the creation of the stub, this does not in any way invalidate the species article, and should not be considered an error.


 * OK, that's my summary.


 * Best to all, Invertzoo (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well put. I agree with everything except #7. Of what value is a stub with incorrect taxonomy? Wouldn't such a stub then contain one bit of incorrect information (taxonomy), and one bit of correct information (authority)? If there is a good answer to that, then there will be no need to provide a forecast of stub maintenance. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, let me try to explain. What gets changed would vary from one case to another, but in most cases the taxonomy below the level of family, if it has been changed in some way, the old version would still be correct but somewhat outdated, in exactly the way that most paper sources in malacology would still be correct but somewhat outdated.
 * The species name of a species usually does not change. When a species is put into another genus, the authority and date stays the same and is merely put into parentheses. Maybe the ending of the species name is changed to match the gender of the genus name, if that is different from what it previously was.
 * So most of the changes are updating not really corrections. Sometimes a species name is found to be incorrectly spelled compared to how it was in the original description, and that would be a correction, but if the different spelling has been used in published works, then the incorrect spelling counts as a synonym. Synonyms are not "wrong" exactly, they are simply part of the history of how a species has been labelled over time. If all of these updates were actually fixing things that were, you know, totally "wrong", then any malacological paper or book older than 6 months would be of no use at all. See what I mean? If you are curious, you can ask JoJan what kinds of changes he has mostly been making.
 * These are my opinions. Other people may put a different spin on this, but the more taxonomy you have done, the more you understand this stuff. Some people are biologists but they have never had to work much with all the ins and outs of taxonomy and nomenclature, so they don't know how relative a lot of these things are.
 * best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. That makes perfect sense. I no longer see any basis for the BRFA to be denied or restricted. If JoJan, Snek et al. would approve, why not glue that lovely list into the BRFA? I can't see what objections they might have. Thanks for taking the time. Sorry to make a fuss and ask so many questions. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well like I said, these are my opinions and my way of looking at things. I don't mind the work involved in explaining them to you, because you ask good questions and have been very helpful indeed to the project in the past. You could go ahead and ask JoJan and Snek individually if they agree with what I said and if not ask them to tweak what I said. If we at the project have a consensus on a list of rationales like this then we could post it. Then we could see what the current or next bot approval person thinks of our stance. Invertzoo (talk) 20:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I really trust your opinion. After all, this is your field. If it's okay with you, I will post the list on the project talk page and others can tweak it. Everyone on the project is pro bot, so it shouldn't be too hard. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well OK, go ahead and post it, we will see what happens. I don't know if everyone will agree with me, but hopefully we can work something out. Invertzoo (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Another arbitrary section break
The other helpful thing (perhaps) is to explain why it is so important and valuable to us (and to Wikipedia) to have a full set of stubs to cover the whole class of gastropods:
 * 1. We are constantly finding new free images which can be added in to new stubs, that is assuming the stubs are available. JoJan currently has shell images of 2,500 species (!) that are waiting to be added to the project. A leading malacologist in Brazil has also offered to give us a large number of free images. We are constantly finding other new information (with refs) that can rapidly be added, that is, if a stub already exists. When stubs are not pre-existing, having to create a new stub by hand every time you need one is a slow process which is very wasteful of human time and energy. User:Snek01 creates a few new articles on species almost every day of the year (!) If he could use a pre-existing framework of stubs, that would enormously increase his productivity, enabling him to fix up and flesh out far more articles each day.


 * 2. Wikipedia works precisely because people enjoy expanding articles and fixing them up. This is a situation where Wikipedia can really benefit from a "Be Bold" approach.


 * 3. The Gastropods Project staff has expanded very significantly over the last 3 years, from 5 to 23; nine new people joined in 2009 alone! Even though not all of the 23 editors are extremely active, it does show that in another year or so we might have significantly more manpower and possibly manpower that is a lot more expert. We may have people who are quite willing to take on one whole superfamily or another large taxon and fix up all of the stubs in that taxon. We must think of the future as well as the present.


 * Best wishes to all Invertzoo (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

a slug
Hello, I think you have accidentally written a veronicellid instead of philomycid. I have no idea what species it is, but there is breathing pore visible and the whole habitus suggest, that it should be a philomycid. Breathing pore is not visible in veronicellids. --Snek01 (talk) 12:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I am sorry. You are right, my mistake. I changed it. Invertzoo (talk) 12:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

What is this thing
File:Unidentified lizard10.jpg Hello, Susan, maybe you know yourself, or know somebody who could know. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It's very cool. Where did you find it? It looks rather more like a salamander, maybe Salamandroidea to me. Is it from California or somewhere else? And which habitat did you find it in? Was it under a log in a forest? Best, Invertzoo (talk) 22:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Susan, my husband found dozens of them in all sizes in our back yard under the old dead tree.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is in Central California, right? It's definitely a salamander. Let me do a bit of research. Invertzoo (talk) 00:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I am not at all an expert on amphibians, but it does look more than a bit like this species: Batrachoseps attenuatus, the California Slender Salamander. Invertzoo (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Apparently there are 19 species in that genus, so maybe it is another one of them. I will let you know when I hear back from Project Amphibians and Reptiles. Invertzoo (talk) 00:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Eustrombus gigas type
Hi there Susan, how are you doing? I need to copy paste something from the peer review I want you to know:

So now I've read this Catalogue of the Uppsala University Museum of Evolution, stating that the type specimen does exist, and is in the UUZM collection. It seems that Odhner (1953) found the S. gigas shell of the linnean collection, which Linnaeus used to write his original description. I wasn't able to obtain this paper (or book, I don't really know), and it is not in the Zoological Record, but the UUZM catalogue should be reference enough, shouldn't it?

What do you think? We need to update this info in the article ASAP! Daniel Cavallari (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I say good, and go for it! Invertzoo (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help Susan, you're kind as always. As for the original description of S. gigas in Latin, it reads as follows:

"S. testa labro rotundato maximo, coronata ventre spiraque spinis conicis patentibus. Bonan. recr. 3. t. 321. Gvalt. teft. 33. f. A. Habitat in America. Testae color internus vividissimus"

This is quite interesting... It seems that Linnaeus actually referred to Buonanni's book (Bonan. recr. 3. t. 321.). That must have been the reason why Clench & Abbott chose the picture on plate 321. And Testae color internus vividissimus must mean shell's internal color very vivid, which is true... Daniel Cavallari (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The other reference "Gvalt. teſt." would be Gualtieri's Index Testarum Conchyliorum. The rest means something like "Strombus shell with a very large rounded lip, surrounded in belly and spire with wide conical spines.  [...]  It inhabits the Americas.  The interior color of its shell is quite vivid."
 * (I again disclaim knowledge of the best technical terms—there is probably a more appropriate word for 'ventre' (venter) which I have given literally as 'belly', and I'm not entirely sure of the sense of patentibus (pateo) intended here—I gave it as 'wide', which is what they look like to me, though it could be more like 'sticking straight out' or 'perpendicular', as Webster 1913 suggests is the use of its Anglicized form in botany, or something else altogether.) —Muke Tever talk 21:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 September 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 22:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

STENAPA
Hi. Just wanted you to know that I eliminated the mltiple section headers in your new article, without deleting any information. Right now, it's essentially a stub article, and doesn't need all those sections, which can be added later if the article is expanded. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Towards a new GA
Hi there Susan! Thank you very much for your help with the Eustrombus gigas peer review. We surely did advance a few steps towards a FA nomination, didn't we? And after all this, we've got a lot of interesting directives for future expansions and fixes. But now that the review has ended, I'll try and concentrate my efforts into submiting Strombus canarium to a GA review. If you feel like it, please give me a help with this one as well. It would be marvelous to achieve this with your help! Best wishes, Daniel Cavallari (talk) 04:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The GA review has begun! Let's see how will it go. Best, Daniel Cavallari (talk) 11:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very, very much for your help Susan! It was providential. Sasata's review was one of the best I've been through. We made it again! Daniel Cavallari (talk) 17:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)