Hey there. I recently stumbled across an issue of Nova Hedwigia Beheift titled "the genera of fungi" (or was it agaricaceae?). It's filled to the brink with mind-numbing nomenclatural discussions of all the genera ever described (I think, anyway). Would it be any use if I looked up the specific ref or any specific genera? Circeus 00:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
That would be friggin' trés bién. The first one that would be absolutely great to get a clarification on is Agaricus which was called Psalliota in many texts fro many years and I've been mystified as to why. Other articles I intend cleaning up are Amanita muscaria, which is the one I intended taking to FA first but it just didn't come together well, Gyromitra esculenta as a future FA, Agaricus bisporus as a future FA, and cleaning up the destroying angels – Amanita virosa, Amanita bisporiga and Amanita verna. Boletus edulis would be a good one to check too. let me know if anything interesting pops up. I'll see ifd I can think of any other taxonomic quagmires later today. Work just got real busy :( cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 02:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Generally, that's pretty arcane and only relevant to genus articles, or species that were tightly involving in defining them (for example, there seems to be an odd debate over the multiple type species for Amanita). I'll look up Agaricus, Amanita (since A. muscaria's the current type) and Psalliota. I'll also dig up the ref so you can look it up yourself, with any chance. Circeus 04:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Cool, keen to see what pops up. Cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 05:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I only quickly thumbed through it and noted the full ref (Donk, M.A. (1962). "The generic names proposed for Agaricaceae". Beiheifte zur Nova Hedwigia. 5: 1–320. ISSN0078-2238.) because I forgot about it until the last minute. Psalliota looks like a classic synonym case. It shares the same type with Agaricus, and might be older. Circeus 01:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Weird! I thought Linnaeus was calling all sorts of things Agaricus so I wonder how it could predate that really....anyway I am curious.cheers, Casliber (talk· contribs) 02:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, First thing I have to say is... Damn, 18th–19th century taxonomy and nomenclature of fungi is a right mess. Whose bright idea was it to give fungi 3 starting dates in the ICBN???
Etym.: Possibly "from Agarica of Sarmatica, a district of Russia" (!). Note also Greek ἀγαρικ[1]όν "a sort of tree fungus" (There's been an Agaricon Adans. genus, treated by Donk in Persoonia 1:180)
Donk says Linnaeus' name is devalidated (so that the proper author citation apparently is "L. per Fr., 1821") because Agaricus was not linked to Tournefort's name (Linnaeus places both Agaricus Dill. and Amanita Dill. in synonymy), but truely a replacement for Amanita Dill., which would require that A. quercinus, not A. campestris be the type. This question compounded by the fact that Fries himself used Agaricus roughly in Linnaeus' sense (which leads to issues with Amanita), and that A. campestris was eventually excluded from Agaricus by Karsten and was apparently in Lepiota at the time Donk wrote this, commenting that a type conservation might become necessary.
All proposals to conserve Agaricus against Psalliota or vice versa have so far been considered superfluous.
Basionym is Agaricus sect. Lepiota Pers. 1797, devalidated by later starting date, so the citation is (Pers.) per S.F.Gray. It was only described, without species, and covered an earlier mentioned, but unnamed group of ringed, non-volvate species, regardless of spore color. Fries restricted the genus to white-spored species, and made into a tribe, which was, like Amanita repeatedly raised to genus rank.
The type is unclear. L. procera is considered the type (by Earle, 1909). Agaricus columbrinus (L. clypeolarus) was also suggested (by Singer, 1946) to avoid the many combination involved otherwise in splitting Macrolepiota, which include L. procera. Since both species had been placed into different genera prior to their selection (in Leucocoprinus and Mastocephalus respectively), Donk observes that a conservation will probably be needed, expressing support for Singer's emendation.
On Psalliota
Etym.: ψάλιον, "ring"
Psalliota was first published by Fries (1821) as trib. Psalliota. The type is Agaricus campestris (widely accepted, except by Earle, who proposed A. cretaceus). Kummer (not Quélet, who merely excluded Stropharia) was the first to elevate the tribe to a genus. Basically, Psalliota was the tribe containing the type of Agaricus, so when separated, it should have caused the rest of the genus to be renamed, not what happened. It seems to be currently not considered valid, or a junior homotypic synonym, anyway the explanation is that it was raised by (in retrospect) erroneously maintaining the tribe name.
On Amanita
Etym.: Possibly from Amanon,a mountain in Cilicia.
A first incarnation from Tentamen dispositionis methodicae Fungorum 65. 1797 is cited as devalidated: "Introduced to cover three groups already previously distinguished by Persoon (in [...] Tent. 18. 1797) under Agaricus L., but at that time not named. It is worth stressing that [The species now known as Amanita caesarea] was not mentioned."
With Agaricus L. in use, Amanita was a nomen nudum per modern standard, so Persoon gave it a new life unrelated to its previous incarnations, and that is finally published after a starting date by Hooker (the citation is Pers. per Hook., 1821). He reuses Withering's 1801 definition (A botanical arrangement of British plants, 4th ed.). "The name Amnita has been considered validly published on different occasions, depending on various considerations." Proposed types include (given as Amanita. Sometimes they were selected as Agarici):
A. livida Pers. (By Earle, in 1909). Had been excluded in Vaginata or Amanitopsis and could not be chosen.
A. muscaria Pers. (By Clemens & Shear, 1931) for the genus (1801) from Synopsis fungorum, was generally transferred to the one from Hooker's Flora of Scotland, which is currently considered the valid publication of Amanita (or was in the 50s).
A. phalloides (by Singer, 1936) for the 1801 genus.
A.bulbosa (by Singer & Smith, 1946) for Gray's republication. This is incorrect as Gray's A. bulbosa is a synonym of A. citrina. Some authors consider Gray to be the first valid republisher.
A. caeserea (by Gilbert, 1940). Troublesome because not known personally to Persoon or Fries.
Donk concludes the earliest valid type is A. muscaria, the species in Hooker, adding that he'd personally favor A. citrina.
The name has been republished three times in 1821: in Hooker, Roques and Gray (in that order). Roques maintained Persoon's circumscription, including Amanitopsis and Volvaria. Gray excluded Amanitopsis and Volvariella into Vaginata. Right after, Fries reset the name by reducing the genus to a tribe of Agaricus, minus pink-spored Volvariella. This tribe became a subgenus, than genus via various authors, Quélet, altough not the first, often being attributed the change. Sometimes it was used in a Persoonian sense (whether that is a correct use according to ICBN is not clear to me).
Homonyms of Amanita Pers. are Amanita adans. (1763, devalidated) and Amanita (Dill) Rafin. (1830)
LOL, I love your sense of humour. Maimonedes is a good reference. The reality is that Islam takes food restrictions from Judaism; and Christianity doesn't have any restriction (courtesy of three references in the New Testament). The reason why pork should be restricted (along with many other things) is not given explicitly in the Hebrew Bible, hence Bible commentators have been offering guesses since ancient times. My own favourite, however, is Mary Douglas, wife of Louis Leakey, daughter of a Lutheran pastor. Her theory is excellent, based on her cultural anthropological observations, with a decent feel for how Biblical text works. It's rather an abstract theory though.
Anyway, I'll see if I can manage a literature review of dietry restrictions in the ANE, especially if there's anything explicit about pork. Don't think I'll find a reference for "why" the pork taboo is in place, though, if it's documented, I'd have read about that in commentaries.
Perhaps a clay tablet with the answer has been destroyed in only the last few years during the "troubles" in Iraq. :( Alastair Haines (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
This is the great thing about uncertainty. Lacking an answer, the reports of Maimonides, Mary Douglas and the other guy mentioned are fascinating.Cheers, Casliber (talk· contribs) 22:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Spotted this. I'll look for a ref to the Maimonides comment. The normal teaching is that pork is no more or less offensive to Jews than any other forbidden meat (dog, horse etc) or forbidden part of kosher animal (blood, Gid Hanasheh etc). The pig (NB pig, not pork – an important distinction which is relevant for the Maimonides comment too, I note) is "singled out" because it alone of the animals that have one of the two "signs" (it has split hooves but doesn't chew the cud) lies down with its legs sticking out. Most quarapeds have their legs folded under them. There's a midrashic lesson to be learned there, apparently, that the pig is immodestly and falsely proclaiming its religious cleanliness, when it is not. Anyway, that said, I'll look into the M comment – he was quite ahead of his time in terms of medical knowledge (check his biog). And NB my OR/POV antennae buzzed when I read that little section. --Dweller (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... makes me more dubious, but I'll check. btw... I'm not Alastair! --Dweller (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Have found good stuff, including online version of Maimonides text. I'll dump it here for you to use as you wish.
I maintain that the food which is forbidden by the Law is unwholesome. There is nothing among the forbidden kinds of food whose injurious character is doubted, except pork (Lev. xi. 7), and fat (ibid. vii. 23). But also in these cases the doubt is not justified. For pork contains more moisture than necessary [for human food], and too much of superfluous matter. The principal reason why the Law forbids swine's flesh is to be found in the circumstance that its habits and its food are very dirty and loathsome. It has already been pointed out how emphatically the Law enjoins the removal of the sight of loathsome objects, even in the field and in the camp; how much more objectionable is such a sight in towns. But if it were allowed to eat swine's flesh, the streets and houses would be more dirty than any cesspool, as may be seen at present in the country of the Franks.[1]
So, Maimonides argues "pork contains more moisture than necessary [for human food], and too much of superfluous matter", whatever that means! More importantly, the "principal reason" is that if you keep pigs, you end up with a dirty and unhealthy environment. Important note: Maimonides was writing from Islamic Egypt at the time, which is why he mentions "as may be seen at present in the country of the Franks." (ie France)
The comments about the pig's habit of lying with its legs outstretched come from Midrash Vayikra Rabba (ch 13) where it is mentioned as part of an elaborate metaphor, but not in connection with any reason for particularly abhorring the creature.
Hope that helps. --Dweller (talk) 09:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
You know what I don't get? On page 245 of George (1981), and again on page 40 of Collins (2007), George gives a diagram showing the arrangement of unit inflorescences on a Banksia flower spike. Both diagrams clearly show a hexagonal layout; i.e. every common bract is surrounded by six equidistant common bracts, thus forming little hexagons. In support of this, George (1981) states "The unit inflorescences are so arranged on the axis that there are three pattern lines—vertical, and both dextral and sinistral spiral."
I haven't dissected an inflorescence, but in some species the pattern persists right through flowering and can be seen on the infructescence. You won't get a better example than this B. menziesii cone. Look at that pattern. There's no way you could call it hexagonal. It is a rectangular (or rather diamond, since the lines are diagonal) grid. Depending on how you define a neighbourhood, you could argue that each common bract has 4 or 8 neighbours, but there's no way you could argue for 6. Similarly, you could argue for two pattern lines (dextral and sinistral spiral) or four (dextral, sinistral, vertical and horizontal), but there is no way you could argue for 3, because there is no reason to include vertical whilst excluding horizontal). On top of that there is a beautiful symmetry in the way each common bract is surrounded by its own floral bracts and those of its neighbours. But George's diagrams destroy that symmetry.
I thought maybe B. menziesii was an exception to a general rule, but you can see the same diamond grid, though not as clearly, in File:Banksia serrata4.jpg, and I reckon (but am not certain) I can see it in my B. attenuata cone. And in File:Banksia prionotes mature cone.jpg too. What the heck is going on?
(I'm not just being a pretentious wanker here. I thought the diagram was interesting and informative enough for me to whip up an SVG version for Wikipedia. But since copying George's diagram isn't really on, and it is much better to go straight from nature if possible, I was basing my version on this B. menziesii cone. But it isn't going to work if the diagram shows a rectangular grid and the text has to say it is hexagonal.)
Thanks for reminding me on this one – I think it was Alex (or Kevin??) who told me that every bract pattern was unique to a species and hence diagnostic, but as far as I know not much if anything has been published on this area. The similarity between archaeocarpa and attenuata was noted (the bract pattern remaining in the fossils). I seem to recall feeling bamboozled as well by the description when I read it some time ago. I will have to refresh myself with some bedtime reading....Casliber (talk· contribs) 13:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Update: I had a look at the pages in question in the banksia book(s), there is a little bit more in the 1981 monograph but not much. I meant to ring Alex George about this and should do so in the next few days...I guess the photos look sort of like hexagons stretched vertically :P Casliber (talk· contribs) 06:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Dipsacus fullonum Just passing through. I am not an expert with flora but I do take photos now and again. Does this image from my personal collection help or hinder your discussion? I see diamonds --Senra (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Haha yeah. Not a bad comparison at all. a diamond pattern it is there as well. You sorta let your eyes go a little out of focus and see two diagonal lines....Casliber (talk· contribs) 14:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Question
If this is what developing flower pairs look like...
then what are these brown and white furry things?
I note that the last six images to be posted on your talk page were posted by me. I'm not sure whether to apologise....
What is going on in the lower image? Clearly this is an inflorescence in very early bud, but those furry white things are apparently not developing flower pairs. Are they some kind of protective bract or something?
You certainly see those thingies on the developing buds of alot of banksias. I'd be intrigued what the Nikulinsky book, which is essentially a series of plates of a developing menziesii inflorescence, says (not sure, I don't recall whether it had commentary...). Another thing to look up. Was about to look up the patterns just now. Casliber (talk· contribs) 02:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Now I have looked at the books and bract architecture, question is are they common bracts or are they something which falls off (don't think so but..). Something else to ask Alex. Casliber (talk· contribs) 06:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Having found nothing in George, I've been reading Douglas's stuff on ontogeny of Proteaceae flowers, and found nothing there either.
If you snap a spike axis in half, they are just that brown colour, and essentially made of closely packed fuzz. I wonder if there is initially no gap in the axis for the flower to grow, so the developing flower literally has to shove some of the axis out in front of it as it extends. This would explain everything except for the white tip. Hesperian 10:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I have today taken a long lunch and gone bushwalking with Gnangarra. While he took happy-snaps, I did some OR on this question. My diagnosis is: these are peduncles that have developed common bracts, but have not yet developed floral bracts or flowers.
In very young spikes like the one pictured here, they are not yet very densely packed together, so they can be perceived as individual peduncles. Given time, they will continue to grow, and as they do so they will become more and more densely packed together, until eventually they are jammed together so tightly that their dense coverings of hairs form the fibrous brown material that comprises a typical flower spike, and the common bracts at their apex will form the bract pattern on the surface of the spike. At that point, they will no longer be distinguishable as individual peduncles, but will simply be part of the spike.
When the flowers start to develop, they get squeezed together even more. At this point, sometimes, a peduncle may break off the axis and be squeezed right out of the spike as the flowers around it develop. Thus you may see one or two of these furry things sitting at random positions on the surface of a developed flower spike.
As evidence for this hypothesis I offer the following observations:
Wherever one of those "furry things" is found loose on the surface of a spike, you will also find a gap in the bract pattern beneath it, where the common bract is absent;
"Furry things" may occasionally be found partly out of the spike, but partly in, in which cases the white tip is quite obviously the common bract. In such cases removal of the "furry thing" leaves behind a visible hole in the spike where a common bract ought to be.
Interesting – Gah! Forgot to ring Alex – evening is a crazy time with little availability for me, but will see what I can do. Casliber (talk· contribs) 20:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Not OR any more. Look at the picture of "Banksia flower bud seen in profile" here: clear evidence of the common and floral bracts forming one of those little furry upside-down pyramids, with the flower arising from it. Hesperian 03:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
On a tangential point, the first image would most likely pass FPC if it ever finds a home that is appropriate. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, okay, hopefully Hesperian will see this thread. :) Casliber (talk· contribs) 11:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Gosh, would it really?! I was quite proud of it but a bit unsure whether it had enough depth of field. But if I'll take anyone's word that it would probably pass, I'll take Noodle snacks. :-) Hesperian 23:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Banksia menziesii with persistent florets
While I was out a-walking in the bush one day last week, I spied a banksia with an unfamiliar jizz. Even on closer inspection I was bamboozled for half a minute until the pieces fell together and I realised I was looking at a B. menziesii with persistent florets. Not just a bit late to fall: there were old cones from previous seasons with the florets still bolted on. In fact, there wasn't a single bald cone on the whole tree. I've never seen anything like it. Have you? Hesperian 04:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Hmm..interesting. I have not ever noticed a menziesii like this, but not to say it can't happen. Might it be a menziesii/prionotes hybrid – how far is the tree from you? I'd compare the newgrowth/leaf dimensions/trunk all for comparison. Did it have any new flowers? Some of these old cones have an aura of prionotes about them...Casliber (talk· contribs) 05:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
prionotes crossed my mind at first, but the bark is that of menziesii, and nothing like the distinctive prionotes bark. And the flower spikes lack the woolliness of old prionotes florets.
It's quite near my place; about ten minutes drive. Even closer to where Alex lives (assuming he still lives at the address he has been publishing under lately): only five minutes drive from there I would guess. If it's prionotes (which it isn't), then we've extended the known range of that species 10km south. Likewise, a hybrid means there's a prionotes population nearby, so it amounts to the same thing. Hesperian 05:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I finally made it to the library and got a hold of the article you had asked about a couple of weeks ago. There's enough info there to make DYK-worthy stubs on the genus, and three of the species (macrocarpus, katerinae, toomanis), or, alternatively, maybe enough for a GA on the genus. What are the chances of images? Apparently these fungi make small but visible apothecia on the seed capsules. Berkeley and Broome first wrote about the fungus in 1887, so maybe there's a sketch from the protologue that's useable. Anyway, I'll start adding text in a day or two and maybe we can have the first Banksia/Fungi wikiproject collaboration? Sasata (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
That's a nice image on plate 29 there. They call it Tympanis toomanis on page 224 decription of plate. How do we capture that image and replicate it on commons? Casliber (talk· contribs) 03:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
On page 222, they talk about finding it on a banksia cone near the Tooma River in southern NSW, which leaves me thinking it is a cone of Banksia marginata although they do not state this (OR alert ++++). Funny looking marginata cone but marginata is a hugely variable species....Casliber (talk· contribs) 03:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Check your email; I've sent you a copy of Beaton (1982), where they do state that the cone is B. marginata. (You guys should have asked me first; I could have saved Sasata a walk to the library.) Hesperian 03:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
@Sasata – I'll leave it up to you whether a solid GA and one DYK for the whole shebang, or 4 species articles – you've got the material and I am happy either way. cheers, Casliber (talk· contribs) 03:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Am working on the article behind-the-scenes now... that picture you uploaded is excellent, and thanks Hesp for finding the protologue. Too bad the scan resolution is so crappy; I can upload a screen capture/crop to Commons, but will first investigate to see if there's a copy of the original around here so I might rescan at higher resolution. Four DYKs and 1 GA doesn't sound unreasonable for the lot, but I'll see what I can come up with. Sasata (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
The resolution is good. I guess you were looking at it at 25%. Try zooming in. Hesperian 03:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it'll do the trick. I gave the article a good push towards GA. Hesp, do you have easy access to Beaton 1984, or maybe Fuhrer, B,; May, T. (1993). "Host specificity of disc-fungi in the genus Banksiamyces on Banksia." Victorian Naturalist (South Yarra)110 (2):73–75? I think once those two are located and added, that'll be it from journals (but you may find stuff to add from your Banksia books?). I could start stubs for the species, but it would be a shame to have to leave out B. maccannii. Sasata (talk) 07:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I can probably get Vic Naturalist at UNSW Library next tuesday or friday (slim chance on weekend). Casliber (talk· contribs) 07:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
When you get to Victorian Naturalist, you'll also want to grab Sommerville, K.; May, T. (2006). "Some taxonomic and ecological observations on Banksiamyces". The Victorian Naturalist. 123: 366–375.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)Hesperian 08:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that, wonder why it didn't show up in my database search. Cas, if it's too mush hassle for you to get these, let me know and I can order them, would take 1–2 weeks to get here.
I'll have easy access to Beaton (1984) on Monday. No access to Victorian Naturalist. Hesperian 08:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot again. I've just scanned it now. Cas: I'll forward shortly; if you have Sasata's email address, can you forward it on please? Otherwise, Sasata: send me an email so I know where to send this scan. Hesperian 04:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any email link on your user page... I can wait until Cas forward a copy. Thanks kindly Sasata (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I guess you've never noticed the "Email this user" link in the sidebar toolbox.... Hesperian 23:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
! Wouldya look at that... That's embarrassing! Now excuse me while I go give eyewitness testimony in a murder trial. Sasata (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Hang on a sec, will send. Also, will be near the library again for Vic Naturalist. Casliber (talk· contribs) 20:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Hahaha. Fantastic. I just realised I never uplaoded a funny photo I took in WA a few years ago. I need to double check.
This old cone of Banksia violacea had these dark objects on it which might be a fungus as they certainly weren't on any other cones I saw about the place.
Casliber (talk· contribs) 20:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
As OZtrylia has a notoriously under described rang of and field of mycology study – any signs of further fungi or algae work is to be encouraged at all points SatuSuro 01:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Taking pity on poor Cas, whose Banksia books are still packed up in boxes:
From Collins, Collins and George (2008), page 47, first paragraph of a section entitled "Fungi and lichens":
"Many kinds of fungi are associated with Banksias. There is even a genus of fungi named for their association with these plants—Banksiamyces. The first species of these was recognised in the 1880s and placed in the genus Tympanis, then in the 1950s transferred to the genus Encoelia. Further collections and research led to the description of the genus Banksiamyces by Beaton and Weste in 1982, with two further species. Six taxa are now recognised, so far known from 13 species of Banksia (Sommerville & May, 2006). Commonly known as banksia discs, they have all been found on eastern Australian Banksias and one is also known in Western Australia. They are discomycete fungi, growing on the fruit and appearing as small, shallow dark cups on the follicles (Fuhrer, 2005). When dry they fold inwards and look like narrow slits. Their effect is unk[n]own but it seems unlikely that they are responsible for degradation of the seeds."
At the bottom of the page there is a photo of Banksiamyces on B. lemanniana. They look like little light grey maggots on the follicles. Based on the photo and textual description, I would suggest that the B. violacea photo doesn't show this genus. Hesperian 11:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, that's what I initially thought when I read the description and sketches in Beaton 1982, but after seeing B&B's 1872 sketches, I was pretty sure Cas's pic was a Banksiamyces. I guess I should reserve judgment until I get more info. Sasata (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
From the abstract of Somerville and May 2006: "Apothecia of these crops are of different macroscopic appearance, with lighter apothecia being mostly immature, and darker apothecia producing spores." ... so who knows? Sasata (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Anything else to add to this article? Shall we put it up for GAN? Sasata (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah put it up, there might be some bits and pieces. I'll take a look. Casliber (talk· contribs) 20:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Any Banksia experts you're chums with that might be able to give a confirmation on your putative Banksiamyces photo? Sasata (talk) 05:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
damn, I meant to contact Tom May about it (who has been helpful before). Will dig up his email and see what he says. Casliber (talk· contribs) 07:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
More bedtime reading
[2]—the most recent phylogeny and dating of Proteaceae. Easy to miss with such an obscure title. Hesperian 12:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
You may want to have a look there as well. Appears to have been improved by a Szasz fan. I've read diagonally this article, but even that doesn't seem to support the light in which the Halpern-Szasz issue is presented in Wikipedia. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Just go back from a weekend break with no innernet..now where was I.....Casliber (talk· contribs) 10:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Figs
Okay, I'm giving my impression on F. maxima, since I'm not clear what you are actually asking. The description, I must say, is a particularly lacking part of the article under any evaluation criterion. Even as one who appreciates the topic, I'm finding the taxonomy section very confusing. As in Entoloma sinuatum, I'll gladly have a look into rewriting it if you want me to. The huge list of synonym suggest there is significant variation in the plant, possibly infraspecific taxa? I agree the Reproduction section is possibly too detailed. It can probably be reduced to a 2-paragraph primer and merged into "Ecology", though I have a hard time identifying what is species (or could be!) species-specific and what is not, as I have no familiarity with the plants in question (not to mention I am not an actual plant scientist even compared to you).
One of the greater-scale problem I see, which you might want to work on if you're going to take aim at several of these articles, is that information on the peculiar reproduction suystem in figs as a whole is spread across multiple articles (the genus article, Common fig and other species, syconium) and poorly focused, leaving no good article to aim {{main}} links at. I suspect using syconium as he main article and linking to it from others (including Ficus) might be, in the long run, the best course of action. Circéus (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good. Don't worry about rewriting anything yet. I was looking at overall meta-article structure WRT reproduction, which you've given me a good idea to work with. Cheers, Casliber (talk· contribs) 03:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Constellation task force assessment
Certainly Assessment boxes like the one for the cardiology task force are made by User:WP 1.0 bot. Just post to talk there and it can make your box easily. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that! I've not used bots in my time here. Casliber (talk· contribs) 01:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Aboriginal Astronomy
Hi Casliber – thanks for your note. Yes there's quite a bit more out there which Duane Hamacher and I are slowly trying to get written up. You can find some more stuff on www.emudreaming.com and you may find some papers you havent come across on http://www.atnf.csiro.au/people/rnorris/papers/papers.htm
Have fun! RayNorris (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Great! I'll have a look and if I find anything specific to nag you on...I will :) cheers, Casliber (talk· contribs) 03:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
ok – will take a look soonish....Cas Liber (talk· contribs) 14:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Orange-bellied Parrot
Neophema99 (talk) 07:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC) Hi. I would like to open for discussion the format of the entry for 'Orange-bellied Parrot'. As news occurs in the recovery program for this species, the limitations of the current format of the Wikipedia entry become more obvious.
The heading, 'Conservation Status' should, I believe, be reserved for the actual conservation status in Australia, and in the three states, SA, Tasmania and Victoria. What follows after that, but still under that heading, at present, is a running commentary of events since about 2010.
This is not acceptable.
I propose another heading be inserted, 'Recovery Program' or similar. In it, a short history of the OBP recovery program could be given – since 1980 or so – and then, new events could be smoothly inserted as they happen.
What do others think? The Wikipedia entry is an important first port of call for many people interested in this bird. We owe it to them, and to history, to provide a better entry.
Agreed. Will take a look. sounds good – helps with seamless updating and no doubt there is a lot of info that could be added. Cas Liber (talk· contribs) 08:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
got any advice for writing a constellation FA?
Thinking of diversifying and trying Corona B. Double sharp (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
It's easier than stars as there is less hardcore physics involved, but trickier as you have to make the material not "listy", which it sort of is by very nature. Smaller constellations are easier as there is less material to list generally. Star guide books, alot of which are on google, are good for general overview, how to find things, what's next to what etc. but alot of their factual info (distance/luminosity) is outdated. I have even suspected this in newer reprints/editions where new material is coming out. SIMBAD is a godsend and makes finding other material easy. I was using it as a ref itself but probably better to use the refs it cites. Overall I find astronomy articles more challenging than biology ones – trickeir to make engaging. We can collaborate on CrB if you like as I did plan on taking it All the Way at some point and then having it as a double mainpage with CrA. Collaborating is good as it makes for less work in some ways – each of us can copyeidt the other etc. 20:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Just popping in during some of the rare free time I have at the moment to say that the hardest part of the constellation articles is figuring out exactly what objects to write about, since there is generally quite a bit of discretion in whether or not something should be in the article. I generally try to write about all stars brighter than magnitude 5.0, and the most-studied astronomical objects within the constellation, as well as a few other things such as extremes (e.g. R136a1) and unusual objects. One tip to find notable stars, I've found, is this SIMBAD query, which lists all Bayer, Flamsteed, and variable stars in each constellation by number of refs. Of course further research is necessary for other stars without said designations, but it's a good start. I would help, but I don't anticipate having much free time at all until at least December. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
StringTheory11 Wow! Great idea/find! That really helps. Agree with what you've said. I think it is good to get these in order as it also highlights what other articles are underdone or incorrect etc. Cas Liber (talk· contribs) 01:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Yup the small size was part of the reason I chose CrB (it's not the only reason though :-P). I'm cool with a collaboration. ST11's suggestions, as always, make a lot of sense. Going to read through some constellation FAs to get an idea of what to write – not least CrA... Double sharp (talk) 02:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Double sharp, I have started buffing with this one. Just arting with the brighter stars – SIMBAD is best place to start and then chasing refs. Not sure how much you know about them (figuring distance from parallax etc...) so just ask away..or start on deep sky objects and I'll continue with stars (??) Cas Liber (talk· contribs) 01:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Carcinoma in situ
The carcinoma in situ page has been updated and it explains the different views that sometimes carcinoma in situ is seen as a cancer and sometimes it is not. You will probably remember earlier this year that you supported changing my use of the term "invasive cancer" to "cancer". The expression "invasive cancer" is used frequently in books particularly when talking about cancer of the cervix and in my opinion using the term "invasive cancer" can improve clarity. What do you think of the explanations in the carcinoma in situ article? Snowman (talk) 13:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
As it reads right now, which ones are you thinking should have invasive added to them? Cas Liber (talk· contribs) 19:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Whoops, I have phrased it badly above, but you seem to have understood me. I should have said that you did not support my use of "invasive cancer" and you preferred the use of "cancer" instead. Actually, to me, it is not as simple as just inserting the word "invasive". Back then, I saw a better phrase in a reference and I thought about using it, because I thought that it would be accurate, readable, and I hoped keep everyone happy; however, the situation become unnecessarily tense and I felt like I was walking on eggs (and you know what that means). I did not get around to developing the article any further nor mentioning the "magical" phrase. I will see if I can find the phrase again. I recall that the solution was to use a short phrase in the place of cancer or invasive cancer in the introduction. I am talking in riddles at the present time, because I want to make sure that I can find that phrase again, and that will mean thinking about the introduction again. Snowman (talk) 20:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay, let me know what you are thinking of once you get it clear. It is an intriguing question. Cas Liber (talk· contribs) 11:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I would recommend the amendment belew, because the demarcation between non-cancer and cancer varies according to the literature, as we have seen, and this is made more difficult by a simplified language and vocabulary used to communicate the complex situation to patients. A definition of cancer that includes in-situ cancer is well established, but perhaps the world of the cytologist or histopathologist is a small world, where to say "invasive cancer" is not unusual. This is the current line in the introduction; "Cervical cytology tests can often detect precursors of cervical cancer and enable early successful treatment.". I think that it would be more accurate if it said something like; "The main aim of cervical cytology screening is to detect precursors of cancer and early cervical cancer to enable early successful treatment.". In this new line a full spectrum from viral changes to dysplasia to carcinoma-in-situ to early invasive cancer is included, so the controversy over where to put the non-cancer/cancer line disappears, and the meaning is clear no matter where the reader puts the line in his or her own mind-map. Snowman (talk) 13:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I reworded it like this to make it flow better yet be inclusive and cover all interpretations. Cas Liber (talk· contribs) 13:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
After some deep thought, I think that your edit is good enough. Snowman (talk) 14:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
What do you think about making a joint nomination with me to take the cervix article to FA review sometime? I would not be planning to edit much of the "History" and "Other animals" sections, because I do not know much about those topics. I am not usually on the nominator's side of the fence, but I would be willing to step into that role here, partly to test the water. Snowman (talk) 13:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I think it is a good idea – the prerequisites for being a nominator are being reasonably familar with the article and having the ability to address issues raised at FAC. Do you see anything else that needs fixing before listing it at FAC? 02:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh good. I would like to have a long look at the article before FA nomination, and I expect that I will not feel happy with the article as a potential FA nomination for several weeks. There is some content and page organization in the article (as it is now) that I would like to reflect on. The peer review is also worth re-visiting to see what was not achieved there. I will probably attempt to start a few discussions on the article talk page where relevant. Do you have any time frame in mind or any particular schedule of your own to work around? Of course, I would ask you to constructively criticize my work whenever you think that anything can be improved, and I will try to focus on the issue and answer honestly and objectively trying not to be fractious nor stubborn, with a view to learning from my errors. It think that it will work better like that, than keeping quite or not speaking up when you do not agree with your co-nominator. I am saying that because I guessed that you have not felt easy about not supporting your co-nominator in FA reviews previously. Also, as before, please be alert to my writing style, which can sometimes need re-phrasing owing to clumsy grammar, although the content is often unambiguous (to me at least). Apart from that, it could be challenging writing for general readers and even more challenging writing for specialist readers that are unfamiliar with the small world of histopathology. Snowman (talk) 12:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Snowmanradio I have no time scale on this so it sorta takes as long as it takes. The refs need fixing for page numbers. The material is pretty good – only thing from PR left is double checking lymphatic drainage really I thought. Anyway. Posting things step by step on talk page is good. Cas Liber (talk· contribs) 20:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I would have though that the "Function" heading would be about normal function. Surly, putting a barrier in front of the cx is not a normal function of the cervix. Also, oc pills are more about pharmacology and modified functioning of the cervix. Should the "Contraception" heading have its own level-2 heading? This has been discussed before, but it is worth starting another discussion on the talk page about this? Snowman (talk) 21:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I think that the human altering of function is fine there. I think it is fine as a level 3 heading underneath functionCas Liber (talk· contribs) 23:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
When medicines affect function, it is called pharmacology. Snowman (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
In the introduction; "... the cervix is usually between 2 and 3 cm long and roughly round in shape". Change to: ?
1. "... the cervix is cylindrically shaped usually between 2 and 3 cm long and roughly round in cross section".
2. "... the cervix is usually between 2 and 3 cm long and roughly round in in cross section" Snowman (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I think the first one or something like it – will take a look now. I wonder if the fact it is roughly cylindrical makes saying it's round in cross-section redundant. Cas Liber (talk· contribs) 22:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Your amendment looks find to me. Snowman (talk) 11:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Should there be more consistency in using {{main| under more of the headings where there is an obvious main article else where? Snowman (talk) 11:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, I expect that I will add some when I do some editing there. Snowman (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Re Vaginal portion of cervix. Have you got any ideas on what to do with this article on the portio (or ectocervix)? I do not know why WP Anatomy has so many articles on sub-parts. If relevant, I expect that a formal discussion would be needed to consider a merge. Snowman (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I think it should be merged. Will post something. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 21:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I plan to watch for a while and express an opinion, if needed. Snowman (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
It is off to a good start over there. I think that there is nothing on the unreferenced portio page that can be copied over to the cervix page. We could start planing how to present the portio (and its various names) on the cervix page. Snowman (talk) 12:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
In have found what to me looks like a 2003 copyrighted version of File:Cervix dilation sequence.svg, so I have started a deletion discussion on Commons. Commons administrators will now have a look at it. Initially, I left an message with the uploader on Commons to ask a technical question about the image, and I noticed that he is currently blocked for three months, so I did a search for other copies of the cervix dilation image. The image should show the babies head moving down the birth canal as the cervix dilates, but the head looks stuck. The image is on about a dozen or more Wikis, so they might all be removed by a bot in due course. I am not sure if the image needs removing from the Cervix page at this juncture or not, so I wonder what you think about removal from the en Wiki. Snowman (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh dear – I suspect it will have to be removed, though maybe hold for a moment and see if an explanation is forthcoming. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 09:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I recently found a photograph of a rare parrot with the wrong copyright and it was deleted from Commons one week after I started the deletion discussion. Snowman (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
That sounds in keeping with deletion discussions elsehwere – around 1 week. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 19:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Update: Image was deleted this yesterday. Snowman (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
The Cervical cancer article has had a lot of work on it since about June, and it is well worth looking at. I expect that we could shorten (or otherwise amend) the section on cervical cancer in the "cervix" article, because the "cervical cancer" article offers a good readable account. Snowman (talk) 12:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Re HPV vaccines. Sometimes, I like to tidy up the linked pages. This article was moved from the singular to the pleural in March 2014. I am aware that there is more than one HPV vaccine, but I would expect this to be on the singular name, unless there something controversial about it that I have missed. Snowman (talk) 12:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
@Snowmanradio: yes that is unusual and I think I prefer it at singular. I think it is worth discussing on the talk page. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 10:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
The "Anatomical abnormalities" section looks like a mixture of acquired and congenital diseases. Could this be organized differently? I nearly did a reorganization, but a little re-organization does not change much, and I suspect that it would be easier to do a bit of a re-write. Also, it may be possible to expand the section with a little about the developmental abnormalities of the female genital tract seen in Cryptophthalmos syndrome, Johanson-Blizzard syndrome, Rokitansky Anomalod, and as less commonly seen in Roberts syndrome and Trisomy 18 syndrome. These diseases are not at the front of my mind, however these are in the index of my rather old second-hand book on human malformation. This is not a small change, so I welcome your opinion. Snowman (talk) 13:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
@Snowmanradio: let me take a look. I don't recall it right now and I thought I was happy with it before but will look. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 10:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I have become unexpectedly busy in real life, so I have not had much time for editing the Wiki. I hope that I will be able to contribute with more editing and work on the cervix article again after about two or three months . Snowman (talk) 10:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
@Snowmanradio: no worries. I found that I have lost interest in it. My free time (of which I have little) has to be enjoyable and thus something I have real enthusiasm for. I found I did get a bit enthusiastic about this one but comes and goes. More interested in frigatebird and brachychiton rupestris now. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 10:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Also orange-bellied parrot – very interesting story. I find writing about extinct species makes me sad (I leave them to FunkMonk) but rare ones are ok. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 10:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Apart from manual editing, I was hoping to write a few scripts for fun to do scanning and mass editing tasks on the Wiki this Autumn and Winter, but can not participate in a meaningful way at the present time. I plan to return when I can and I will look to see what you and User FunkMonk are doing then. Incidentally, have you any thoughts on why discussions about anatomy topics tend to be rather brittle? I might ask that question on the WP Anatomy talk page. Snowman (talk) 10:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean by 'brittle'? Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I will ask open-ended questions instead. Do you have any observations about discussions on anatomy topics? Snowman (talk) 12:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Running a contest (talk page watchers welcome)[edit]
Right folks...I can't decide which (long overdue) contest to run again. Putting this out there to see what folks reckon the 'pedia most needs or would be most fun (as without enthusiasm, it won't work). For folks unfamiliar, I try to get a wikigrant so several folks have a chance of winning a $25 (or more) Amazon voucher. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 00:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Continuing admin conversation from Drmies talk page[edit]
Hello! To keep Drmies's talk page clutter-free, I wanted to respond on your talk page instead. Regarding my question, I'm trying to get a better sense of what being an admin involves. I really enjoy researching topics and improving pages, but I also believe that the majority of Wikipedia users just wants well-sourced, stable, and informative pages about whatever they are trying to learn, rather than a reader who is concerned if an article is GA/FA class and that all MOS are met. As such, I've made an effort in some of the different "behind the scenes" functions, particularly anti-vandalism, because I think quality in those areas is what keeps Wikipedia so popular (despite a lot of my edits making it seem like I just want it to be a space exploration encyclopedia). While I think article improvement will always be my one true love, I would also like to continue working in the areas that keep Wikipedia ticking, and view adminship as a set of roles and responsibilities that can help make this happen. From an outsider's perspective, being an admin seems mostly about resolving disputes between editors, protecting pages, intervening/banning problematic editors/vandals, and approving user rights. But I've also never spoken to an admin about their job, and I hope to gain some more info on what the job is like.
Regarding your question about my history as an editor, I definitely took a little while to learn the ropes of WP:ETIQUETTE, and suffered from WP:EDITCOUNTITIS, for which I was (appropriately) called out. But in the ensuing three years, I think I have grown to become a quality editor that tries to improve articles and handles disputes appropriately without jumping to conclusions or losing my temper. But everyone is the hero of their own story, and I would like to get some outside perspective. Thanks! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Being sensible usually. Visiting WP:RPP and protecting pages, closing discussions etc. I am mainly a content editor, so have a feel for how much disruption can occur with IP disruptive editing so probably do more admin edits at RPP than anywhere else. But tools are useful for all sorts of things. I just think of myself as an editor with extra tools. No better than anyone else. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Makes sense, thanks for the response! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm hoping to eventually gain admin rights to further my Wikipedia efforts. Could I get your thoughts on it, and would you be potentially willing to nominate me? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Right, @Balon Greyjoy: can you think of any reason anyone would oppose you right now? Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 00:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, I was busy with the National Guard around the inauguration (and very glad it turned out to be a non-issue). To the best of my knowledge, there isn't anyone who has taken issue with me in the last few years. I know I've had disagreements with other editors during reviews, and I took an impromptu Wikibreak in late 2019 when my personal life got busy. But I don't think there is anyone who feels opposed to me. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
O-kay - gap in editing should be no big deal as it was for 2019. Producing audited content (GA/FA) is good. Can you tell me what you'd specifically want the tools for (i.e. where you'd use them)? Also - can you recall the worst disagreement you've had with an editor in review and how it resolved and link here? Sorry to be so finicky but RfA can go pear-shaped very quickly. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 01:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Cas: I was wondering if you could cast your FA-trained eye over Physcia caesia and tell me whether you think it might have a shot at FA. I worry that it might be too short, but it has pretty much everything I could find on the internet and in my home library. I've never tried to get a fungi article through the lion's den before. MeegsC (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Do we know where the subspecies occur and how they are defined as different? And also how it is distinct from its sister species? Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 04:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I'll see what I can find. MeegsC (talk) 11:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Casliber. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.BunbunYU (talk) 08:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
This is to let you know that the Pacific blue-eye article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 5, 2021. Please check the article needs no amendments.
If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 5, 2021, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.
We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Casliber. I hope you are doing well and staying safe during these times! Apologize to bother and posting a random request. I have just started to work on a stub (Fontainea Venosa)and had added some sections. Knowing your expertise, I would love if you can help me to review and left a comment on what I can do to improve my edits. I hope that this is okay, but no pressure if you are busy. That is completely fine and understandable :)
Hope to hear from you soon. The article is Fontainea Venosa
I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. Feel free to take a "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" if you prefer. :) BOZ (talk) 05:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
Merry Christmas Casliber
Hi Casliber, just wishing you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a happy New Year.Thanks for all your contributions to Wikipedia this year. Here's to 2021 being a bit brighter for all! –Kosack (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Casliber, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very happy and prosperous New Year, Thanks for all your contributions to Wikipedia this past year, like this tree, you are a light shining in the darkness. Onel5969TT me 12:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Happy Holidays
Season's greetings!
I hope this holiday season is festive and fulfilling and filled with love and kindness, and that 2021 will be safe, successful and rewarding...keep hope alive....Modernist (talk) 13:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:28, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. LizRead!Talk! 16:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Best wishes for the holidays
Season's Greetings
Seasons greetings. Hope you and yours are safe and well during this rather bleak period, though I think we will get through it. Best Ceoil (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
bleak outlook
hny and trust all is well, please when creating one liner biota items - remember to add the oz project and the biota tags... trust all your disasters turn to gold etc JarrahTree 11:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
thx for reminding me Cas Liber (talk· contribs) 11:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
nbd - the project will be given a new pass of all articles in the coming year - but lots and lots are not identified as biota, it takes such a long time... JarrahTree 11:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to the 2021 WikiCup!
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. We thank Vanamonde93 and Godot13, who have retired as judges, and we thank them for their past dedication. The judges for the WikiCup this year are Sturmvogel 66 (talk· contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk· contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Jupiter
Think you can save that article? Its currenting at FA Removal. LittleJerry (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Help
Hi, I have abused multiple accounts on Wikipedia, including User:VeronicaPR, User:SpacedOut84, User:VeronicaPR, User:SpacedOut84, User:DendroNaja, one or two more, and the last, User:Pincotti4. I would love an opportunity once more to be allowed to edit. If you are willing to give me the privilege of editing once again, I'd would please like my last account (User:Pincotti4) to be the one I am allowed to use moving forward. 170.52.106.112 (talk) 10:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
O-kay then. This will need some broader discussion - so pinging @Seraphimblade, Atama, Drmies, Bellerophon, and AGK: for comment. What was the most recent article you nominated for GA? on any account? Cas Liber (talk· contribs) 00:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Oooooh, Sebastian, of the poisonous serpents. Drmies (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Cas, I think I remember also that they were doing GA reviews--we should look at any reviews as well. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
That is a very good point. I am trying to think if there is any way this person can be a net positive to wikipedia. Importing copyvios and articles with sourcing issues doesn't make this look too promising but am prepared to be open-minded....Cas Liber (talk· contribs) 01:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I did block one of the sockpuppets years ago, and that blocking was due to the socking alone, so I haven't been involved as far as judging the value of contributions. But I do have concerns about the rampant copyright violations. I appreciate someone who wants to contribute new content, but not if that new content is in violation of our policies. I am all for second chances, but I think this is risky. Note that this request only acknowledges the abuse of multiple accounts and not the reason multiple accounts were needed to get around being blocked in the first place. -- Atama頭 01:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi, it's Pincotti4 (or User:VeronicaPR, User:SpacedOut84, User:DendroNaja). I have in the past engaged in edit-waring and used different accounts , but I promise to all here that my intentions are not about "being right", but rather it's about contributing to help make Wikipedia a better place where others can come and get information and research all topics. Although I have previously caused disruption to various articles, I have also contributed to many articles. Most of cobra articles were created from scratch by one of the sockpuppets I used. Some I was even able to get Good Article status (Naja nigricollis and Naja melanoleuca. Please allow me to contribute and help make Wikipedia better than it already is. One mess up and you guys can remove me once again , thanks. 170.52.106.102 (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC) to take a look at the other GAs, which are Black-necked spitting cobra (2011), Forest cobra (2014), and Many-banded krait (2014). Will look at over next week or so to see whether this is feasible. Cas Liber (talk· contribs) 01:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Cas Liber. Let me know if I can continue as an editor using my Pincotti4 username. If I am allowed to become an editor once again, I plN on improving anything you may point out in the articles mentioned above. In addition, I created most of the cobra articles from scratch. I have further plans on on drastically improving as many articles on a wide variety of elapids. Thanks again . 170.52.106.102 (talk) 04:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Cas Liber, I realize that you are in the process of of looking over the above three GA-status articles. Those are just three articles out of the many which I contributed either wholly or mostly to. In fact, I started the Naja nigricollis article from scratch, and if I remember correctly, I may have also started the Many banded krait article from scratch. Of all the cobra articles, I'd estimate that I created/started maybe 70% of them from scratch. I worked hard on getting permission for many pictures, mostly pictures of snakes (most of the cobra and mamba photos on Wikipedia are there because I went through the process of getting permission, which wasn't always easy). I'm aware that a discussion regarding whether I will be allowed to once again become an editor. what good I have contributed but also to give each of you my word and reassurance that I will be editing in good faith and all the contents will be verifiable and cited correctly. I will be honest with you all - I am currently struggling with some personal issues and I have a lot of time on my hands these days and editing here would be a positive way I can spend my days. I am/was a Phlebotomist, but due to personal reasons I am not currently working in the field. I was a Laboratory Science program dropout (completed a year and half out of the three year program - 3 semesters), so instead of finishing and becoming a laboratory technologist, I ended up as phlebotomist. Not that there is anything wrong with drawing blood daily, but I do regret not completing the progr65am I started. There was a lot of instability in my younger years, so I made impulsive choices which weren't always good choices. My intentions here are benign and I am simply looking for a way to spend this difficult, but temporary period of my life contributing somehow and helping improve Wikipedia (where ever I can), if I'm lucky enough to be given another chance. I will not engage in edit wars. I realize that I can occasionally be biased in my edits and that is unencyclopedic and is against Wikipedia's neutrality rule. I love snakes and I have an interest in toxinology. I've had hands on experience with many different species of venomoous snakes, especially cobras (many Crotalus species as well). So I have made personal observations (original research) on the temperments of many different Naja species. Even though they had been born captivity, N. oxiana, N. nivea, and N. melanoleuca were frequently irascible.
So with that said, I would like to dramatically change and improve the cobra article. Although the whole article needs a bit of a makeover, I especially want to work on the venom section. Venom variation is evident at multiple phylogenetic levels. There is great variation in venom potency even within the same species, among other things including variations in composition. Other factors include things like diet, size and health of the particular specimen can also impact the potency (as well as amount of venom injected in a bite). So in my opinion, that list should be taken off because there is no single LD50 for any species. We have a general idea of which species are more venomous (mostly from data obtained from hospitals who treat snakebite victimms), but it looks like there's several species that produce very severe neurotoxicity in a rapid fashion, similar to Dendroaspis spp. (N. philippinensis, N. nivea). Very rapid onset. Anyway, that's all I've got to say. Thanks.170.52.106.102 (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey, just wondering if I'm going to be given an another opportunity to be an editor? --170.52.106.102 (talk) 04:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
I've been busy. I will set up a community discussion. It is not up to one person. Cas Liber (talk· contribs) 05:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Okay, sounds good, Cas Liber. I will be patient. 170.52.106.102 (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. LizRead!Talk! 15:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. LizRead!Talk! 15:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
TFA 2021
Thank you today for Pacific blue-eye, introduced: "This article is about the second fish I caught and the first I kept in a fish tank. A common and hardy little critter ..."! - Have a good new year! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
FAC
Hi @Casliber: My article Hi-5 (Australian band) is up as a Featured Article Candidate. You left a review at a previous FAC in 2016 and again in 2019, when you indicated support. I'm giving it one more go and support has been moderate so far... I would greatly appreciate it if you would leave some comments on the new FA nomination. I understand if you are too busy, but I would be incredibly grateful for any comments, no matter how small! Thanks! SatDis (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Unbelievable
I want to pinch myself![3] People showing up right and left to help out. It seems to have gathered enough momentum now to keep going; I hope it lasts. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Heh true dat. After years of tumbleweeds....Cas Liber (talk· contribs) 01:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
January
Thank you today for Sagitta, "about a small constellation with some interesting things in it." - Off to expanding knowledge in 2021! I tried to give it a start by updating the QAI project topics. Please check if they make sense. (A short version is on my talk.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
... and today - next day! - for Ficus macrophylla, introduced: "I am trying to balance up all the animal FACs with some plants. This is an important article in the public interest. These giant figs are too difficult to grow in most gardens but critically important to wildlife in eastern Australia and should be planted more widely. And they can be weedy elsewhere." - ... on my mother's birthday who loved gardening. I started a little garden, - help welcome! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Happy Wikipedia 20, - proud of a little bit on the Main page today, and 5 years ago, and 10 years ago, look: create a new style - revive - complete! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Membership renewal of Wiki Project Med Foundation
Membership renewal
You have been a member of Wiki Project Med Foundation (WPMEDF) in the past. Your membership, however, appears to have expired. As such this is a friendly reminder encouraging you to officially rejoin WPMEDF. There are no associated costs. Membership gives you the right to vote in elections for the board. The current membership round ends in 2022.
Hi! Thank you so much for going through and leaving comments on my article regarding the P. phalangioides spider species! I really appreciate the time you put into reviewing it and your helpful comments! I have now gone through and made the appropriate changes per your comments and would greatly appreciate it if you could have another look at the article. There is one part that I only partially changed. The specifics of this are mentioned in the article's talk page under your comments. Again, thank you so much! Kekaze (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello! Hope you are doing well! I was wondering if you could comb through the updated version of the "P. phalangioides" article, and let me know if any changes should be made. Again, thank you so much for all the help that you have already given me!! Kekaze (talk) 11:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
DYK for Guy J
On 22 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Guy J, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that progressive house music producer and DJ Guy J prefers analog equipment over software, describing its sound as "a bit dirty and warm"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Guy J. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Guy J), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cas Liber (talk· contribs) 00:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
That one was a pleasure to review! Today, see Vision pictured (not by me), with Arik Brauer in the news, so art in Vienna twice --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
@Eewilson:, the fair use rationale seems valid. It is highly improbably someone will share a free image unless asked very nicely and they are very generous. So I'd say is ok. I've generally just stuck to free images though. Cas Liber (talk· contribs) 13:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
@Casliber: Thanks. Just wanted to make sure it's not a problem if this article were to pass GA review with those. –Eewilson (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Got time for a GA review 2nd opinion on Hypericum sechmenii
@Casliber: I've been reviewing Hypericum sechmenii for GA. As you know, it's my first one. I think the nominator and I have hashed out all the issues and I'd like to think it's ready for a pass, but because it's my first one, and because I WASBOLD and did a few minor changes along the way during the review (which instructions actually seemed to say were okay), I would like to have a 2nd opinion. I marked the status as such and thought I'd ask you if you have time to look at it. It's not an incredibly long article because the species is rather new and remote and not much has been written on it. —Eewilson (talk) 03:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Someone picked it up. -Eewilson (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorry - been busy IRL. I glanced over it - your review was really thorough and well done I thought. NIce work! Cas Liber (talk· contribs) 19:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! I didn't know what the heck I was doing, but I tried to follow the instructions. Plus, the nominator was great to work with. :) --Eewilson (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for March 21, 2021. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 21, 2021. Congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Laricoideae: non-GA article with GA class on its talk page
Hi, @Casliber: I happened upon this. See Laricoideae talk page. After doing some investigations, I have concluded that the user currently called User:Renamed user 824ytts434mr did this manually. That user created the article and is the one who added the GA class to the talk page. It appears the user has also been JN95 and GooseCanada at one time, changing their username over 2.5–3 years.
The article was created with {{WikiProject Plants|class=C|importance=mid}} on 16 December 2017 and the same user, although possibly with a different name at that time, on 14 February 2020 changed the class from B to GA (at some point it had been changed from C to B I think by the same user) without there having been a GA nomination or review process. There is no {{Good article}} template on the article page, nor is there a {{GA}} template on the talk page. Someone probably needs to modify the params in the {{WikiProject Plants}} template and to look into the users I mention above. The username most active on that page now is called ReddishClover. I'd question the integrity of that one, too, considering. It definitely is not within my capacity to do the user stuff. Could probably change the class, but not sure I want to have to deal with any ramifications of it from the user(s) in question nor get into some sort of mini-edit war with it. —Eewilson (talk) 10:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Hmm, am intrigued. Will look. Cas Liber (talk· contribs) 00:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
GA review request
Hi,
Sorry if you're pressed for time currently (so am I TBH), but would you mind taking over as reviewer for Talk:Aluminium/GA1? The original nominator (R8R) did most of the work (I mostly did the chemistry bits), but he appears to have left WP. Kepler-1229b was taking it, but seems to have gone inactive. I have good memories of you GA-reviewing quite a few of my chemistry articles in the past, so you came to mind first. ;) Double sharp (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
@Double sharp: I'd be happy to take over - an important article to get right Cas Liber (talk· contribs) 00:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you today for Grey Currawong! - I made some mixed comments about arbitration in general here(pictured in 2010), in case of interest, main concern: it will not result in improving kindness, nor any article. I'll not participate, it's inflamed enough without my name. Hammersoft and Newyorkbrad speak my mind. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
It remained the only morning star, the other one still lingering in FAC. Thank you for working on the arb "decision", but you (all there) seem to seriously think RexxS might return. Why would he? Yoninah died. We are loosing the pinnacles of Wikipedia. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi I believe you reviewed a prior GA of mine, I have this article I was hoping you might take a look at, thank you for your time Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Sure/happy to Cas Liber (talk· contribs) 23:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Casliber, I've answered all questions at [5] , should there be further questions please do not hesitate, thank you as always--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your kind, professional and thorough evaluation of Kivu Ebola epidemic, it has been a pleasure to work with you to improve this article, I have been very fortunate to have your input, all the best --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for being patient. I have had alot less free time than I thought I would to devote to this Cas Liber (talk· contribs) 19:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Round 1 of the competition has finished; it was a high-scoring round with 21 contestants scoring more than 100 points. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 55 contestants qualifying. You will need to finish among the top thirty-two contestants in Round 2 if you are to qualify for Round 3. Our top scorers in Round 1 were:
Epicgenius led the field with a featured article, nine good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 945 points.
Bloom6132 was close behind with 896 points, largely gained from 71 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
ImaginesTigers, who has been editing Wikipedia for less than a year, was in third place with 711 points, much helped by bringing League of Legends to featured article status, exemplifying how bonus points can boost a contestant's score.
Amakuru came next with 708 points, Kigali being another featured article that scored maximum bonus points.
Ktin, new to the WikiCup, was in fifth place with 523 points, garnered from 15 DYKs and 34 "In the news" items.
The Rambling Man scored 511 points, many from featured article candidate reviews and from football related DYKs.
Gog the Mild, last year's runner-up, came next with 498 points, from a featured article and numerous featured article candidate reviews.
Hog Farm, at 452, scored for a featured article, four good articles and a number of reviews.
Le Panini, another newcomer to the WikiCup, scored 438 for a featured article and three good articles.
Lee Vilenski, last year's champion, scored 332 points, from a featured article and various other sport-related topics.
These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. In Round 1, contestants achieved eight featured articles, three featured lists and one featured picture, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. They completed 97 good article reviews, nearly double the 52 good articles they claimed. Contestants also claimed for 135 featured article and featured list candidate reviews. There is no longer a requirement to mention your WikiCup participation when undertaking these reviews.
Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or something else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.
This is to let you know that the Scarlet myzomela article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 3, 2021. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 3, 2021, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.
For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.
This is to let you know that the Isopogon anethifolius article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 10, 2021. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 10, 2021, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.
For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.
A hobby is considered to be a regular activity that is done for enjoyment, typically during one's leisure time, not professionally and not for pay. An example of a hobby is rail transport modelling(pictured).
An article you recently created, Rubria (genus), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Drafts is not a policy or a guideline. I was interrupted unexpectedly by real life chores as I was writing. I have now returned and added references and moved this back to mainspace. I don't think templating new editors comes across as very welcoming nor is moving material to draft space without discussion particularly collaborative or welcoming, but actually comes across as patronising. See to me, moving material from mainspace to draftspace sends a message that the material is ultimately unworthy and questions the aptitude of the writer. So if we are going to retain new editors, I'd suggest more talking and less templatign, and maybe refraining from moving pages to draftspace without discussion. Cas Liber (talk· contribs) 13:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Two charts from an Arabic copy of the Secretum Secretorum for determining whether a person will live or die based on the numerical value of the patient's name.
Hi. Do you know someone who you could nudge to review Symphyotrichum lateriflorum since you can't do it? Still no reviewer in sight even during this review-bash month. It's only been about 2 months since I nominated it, though, but just wanted to check. --Eewilson (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I'll have a think Cas Liber (talk· contribs) 00:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you today for Scarlet myzomela, saying: "about a little bird I might see I my garden". Music tomorrow - I wrote that after a death in the family, in 2016. Birds and music will survive us. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you today for Isopogon anethifolius, introduced: "I had intended doing this one first as I got some to grow in my garden and like it more than Isopogon anemonifolius but found the first one came together more readily. Anyway, I am a bit of a Noah and like to do these articles in twos."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
For making the decision that you felt was just rather than what others wanted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Tammar wallaby
Hello. Would you be able to help me update the science section on that tammar article with more recent studies. A lot of papers on the use of it as a model organism is very technical. LittleJerry (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Or if you can't do it, do you know anybody who can? LittleJerry (talk) 23:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Sorry - been busy. Thinking. Cas Liber (talk· contribs) 00:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
@LittleJerry: I am happy to look at it but I want to get back to writnig, which I have not done in a long time. If it can wait 6-8 weeks I am happy to look then. Cas Liber (talk· contribs) 10:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
On 7 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Greeneye spurdog, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the greeneye spurdog, Sydney skate, grey skate and whitefin swellshark are at risk of extinction by trawling, according to a 2021 report? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Greeneye spurdog. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Greeneye spurdog), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
On 7 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sydney skate, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the greeneye spurdog, Sydney skate, grey skate and whitefin swellshark are at risk of extinction by trawling, according to a 2021 report? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Greeneye spurdog. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Sydney skate), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
On 7 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Grey skate, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the greeneye spurdog, Sydney skate, grey skate and whitefin swellshark are at risk of extinction by trawling, according to a 2021 report? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Greeneye spurdog. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Grey skate), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hi there! For much of the month of March, I worked on improving 2020 US Open (tennis) to GA status, which it attained on April 3 (review here). I am relatively new to this part of Wikipedia, with this being only my second GA, but I would like to work on improving this article to FA status if possible. Given the low promotion rate for first-time FA nominators, I figured I'd be better off getting some help before starting the nomination. Would you be willing to mentor me and help me to prepare this article for an FA nomination? Thanks, PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Sure @PCN02WPS: - am busy but will take a look soon Cas Liber (talk· contribs) 20:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Just wanted to check in on this as it's been about a month - if you're still busy I'd be more than happy to take it to another potential mentor. Thanks. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for completing 3 reviews in the March 2021 backlog drive. Your work helped us reduce the backlog by over 52%. Best, Eddie891TalkWork 13:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
The second round of the 2021 WikiCup has now finished; it was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 61 points to advance to Round 3. There were some impressive efforts in the round, with the top eight contestants all scoring more than 400 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 110 good articles achieved in total by contestants, as well as the 216 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.
Our top scorers in Round 2 were:
The Rambling Man, with 2963 points from three featured articles, 20 featured article reviews, 37 good articles, 73 good article reviews, as well as 22 DYKs.
Epicgenius, with 1718 points from one featured article, 29 good articles, 16 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
Bloom6132, with 990 points from 13 DYKs and 64 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
Hog Farm, with 834 points from two featured articles, five good articles, 14 featured article reviews and 15 good article reviews.
Gog the Mild, with 524 points from two featured articles and four featured article reviews.
Lee Vilenski, with 501 points from one featured article, three good articles, six featured article reviews and 25 good article reviews.
Sammi Brie, with 485 points from four good articles, eight good article reviews and 27 DYKs, on US radio and television stations.
Ktin, with 436 points from four good articles, seven DYKs and 11 "In the news" items.
Please remember that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of Round 2 but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in Round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (except for at the end of each round, when you must claim them before the cut-off date/time). When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and CwmhiraethMediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
On 5 May 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Imperator luteocupreus, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the yellow and orange mushroom Imperator luteocupreus stains blue when bruised or cut? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Imperator luteocupreus. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Imperator luteocupreus), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hey, Casliber. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!Zai(💬 • 📝 • ⚡️) 18:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
On 6 May 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Russula mustelina, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the russet brittlegill is collected and eaten by people in the Ivory Coast? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Russula mustelina. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Russula mustelina), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Tattooing among women of the Koita people of Papua New Guinea traditionally began at age five and was added to each year. The V-shaped marks on the chest, with certain others, indicate that the woman is marriageable. Photo taken in 1912.
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for June 25, 2021. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 25, 2021. Congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Indian roller 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 MeegsC -- MeegsC (talk) 12:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Your DYK nomination of
Hello! Your submission of Pygmy copperhead at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and I just wanted clarification about the capitalization. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 15:27, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
On 30 May 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Macrocybe gigantea, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the mushroom Macrocybe gigantea has been found growing on elephant dung in Kerala? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Macrocybe gigantea. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Macrocybe gigantea), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
I'm letting you know in advance about a meeting I'd like to invite you to regarding the Universal Code of Conduct and the community's ownership of its future enforcement. I'm still in the process of putting together the details, but I wanted to share the date with you: 27 June, 2021. I do not have a time on this date yet, but I will let you soon. We have created a meta page with basic information. Please take a look at the meta page and sign up your name under the appropriate section.
Thank you for your time.--BAnand (WMF) 15:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar
Thanks so much for doing all that administrative work for DYK--I really appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 12:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Heh, thx! Cas Liber (talk· contribs) 11:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
The article Indian roller you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Indian roller for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MeegsC -- MeegsC (talk) 09:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
On 7 June 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Red-headed tanager, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the red-headed, rose-throated and flame-colored tanagers(pictured) are not tanagers but cardinals? You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Red-headed tanager), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
This is to let you know that the Green rosella article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 2, 2021. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 2, 2021, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.
For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.
heh double trouble :) Cas Liber (talk· contribs) 10:07, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
thank you today for Red-bellied black snake, introduced "about a critter I once saw in my garden....much to my chagrin"! - What was the chagrin? Have some flowers, nicely matching the image representing User:SlimVirgin in colour and (almost) posture, and a good colour for missing. Music is resuming after more than a year, even a real choir rehearsal planned for next week, which is uplifting my spirits, - much needed, too many sick and dying, here and in real life. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
More music: 2 songs, the morning song - about rising from being down, in more than one sense - is a GA, - there should be more given my initials, but I also want to care for articles of those who recently died (now Esther Béjarano), and psalms in memory of Yoninah, - more missing than there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
+ more music, cello sonatas and a new song about a feast - a dear family member remembered today when she would have been 122 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
DYK for Pygmy copperhead
On 13 June 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pygmy copperhead, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the bite of the pygmy copperhead is potentially fatal if untreated? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pygmy copperhead. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Pygmy copperhead), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
On 21 June 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Australotitan, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Australotitan is the largest dinosaur discovered in Australia? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Australotitan. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Australotitan), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
For your time, help, guidance, direction, input, encouragement, and Wikilove which helped me to stay focused to get Symphyotrichum lateriflorum to GA status! This would not have happened without you. You're the best. Eewilson (talk) 06:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Heh, thx! but you did the heavy lifting! Cas Liber (talk· contribs) 23:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Rollback rights?
With exaggerated obsequiousness,
I ask of thee, stranger: would you consider granting me rollback rights?
Here is my edit count: [6]
And I'm enrolled in countervandalism academyCheerful Squirrel (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Football match FAC
Hi there, hope you and yours are well! I notice that you have reviewed a few recent football FACs, and wondered if you might have time to swing by my current one? I'd very much value your input if you have time, but no worries if not. All the best! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:05, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
'appy to take a butcher's at it. Cas Liber (talk· contribs) 09:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
The third round of the 2021 WikiCup has now come to an end. Each of the sixteen contestants who made it into the fourth round had at least 294 points, and our top six scorers all had over 600 points. They were:
The Rambling Man, with 1825 points from 3 featured articles, 44 featured article reviews, 14 good articles, 30 good article reviews and 10 DYKs. In addition, he completed a 34-article good topic on the EFL Championship play-offs.
Epicgenius, a New York specialist, with 1083 points from 2 featured article reviews, 18 good articles, 30 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
Bloom6132, with 869 points from 11 DYKs, all with bonus points, and 54 "In the news" items, mostly covering people who had recently died.
Gog the Mild, with 817 points from 3 featured articles on historic battles in Europe, 5 featured article reviews and 3 good articles.
Hog Farm, with 659 points from 2 featured articles and 2 good articles on American Civil War battles, 18 featured article reviews, 2 good articles, 6 good article reviews and 4 DYKs.
BennyOnTheLoose, a snooker specialist and new to the Cup, with 647 points from a featured article, 2 featured article reviews, 6 good articles, 6 good article reviews and 3 DYKs.
In round three, contestants achieved 19 featured articles, 7 featured lists, 106 featured article reviews, 72 good articles, 1 good topic, 62 good article reviews, 165 DYKs and 96 ITN items. We enter the fourth round with scores reset to zero; any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (one contestant in round 3 lost out because of this). When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and CwmhiraethCwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Flower improvements
Hi Casliber, I've been improving Flower for WP:TCC and have just finished a section on the flower's importance to plant taxonomy. Is this the kind of thing you had in mind when you commented on the original submission? I've also added a section on the etymology, fertilization, fruit and seed development, and seed dispersal, as well as rewrote pollination. I was going to ask you later because I still have to rewrite the morphology, symbolism and in culture sections, but are there any other sections you think are needed?
Any help welcome :) Thanks, Dracophyllum 09:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Will have a look Cas Liber (talk· contribs) 11:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Congratulations, Casliber! The article you nominated, Indian roller, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
DYK for Lutjanus fulvus
On 8 July 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lutjanus fulvus, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the blacktail snapper is commercially fished in Kiribati and the Ryukyu Islands? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lutjanus fulvus. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Lutjanus fulvus), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
On 10 July 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Red-billed pied tanager, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the red-billed pied tanager(pictured) is not a tanager? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Red-billed pied tanager. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Red-billed pied tanager), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hi Cas. I noticed you've started filling out the TCC table of improvements. Just checking: will you be updating it again after the contest ends next week? I'm currently working on Manufacturing in an offline draft and so I haven't pushed any edits to the live article yet. DanCherek (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
I am an idiot. My brain was thinking 4 weeks. Keep going. Cas Liber (talk· contribs) 01:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Phew! Thanks :) DanCherek (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
No, thank you..had you not posted I would have spent the next wee while on this....Cas Liber (talk· contribs) 01:05, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Bare URL link rot on article
Hi CasLiber, hope you are well. Could you explain to me what needs to be done about the tag for Bare URL link rots on the page Partick Thistle? I ask you as you were the good article reviewer for the page when you helped me a few years ago and I wondered if you can help me now. Do I need to use web archive for the links to websites?
Andrew Hendo (talk) 21:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Yeah the web archive is what we all should be doing but i concede I am lazy in that regard myself....Cas Liber (talk· contribs) 20:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Oh well, looks like I’ve got some work to do! I can’t say I’m the most experienced editor but I’m hopeful to keep the GA status! Andrew Hendo (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Yeah formatting references....join the club. doing it now....sigh... Cas Liber (talk· contribs) 20:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
@Andrew Hendo: incidentally if the 1971 Scottish League Cup Final article could increase its text 5-fold in 7 days it could be on teh DYK section of the main page...just sayin' Cas Liber (talk· contribs) 20:38, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
@Casliber: Oh that would be great! To get my local team on the main page would be wonderful. My week will consist of Thistle’s refs, 1971 and Davie Cooper to GA. As the saying goes “I’ll start on Monday”! Andrew Hendo (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that you had made edit suggestions to several FAC's in the past. As it stands I am trying to get an article I have heavily contributed to, El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie, promoted to a featured article. If you had the time, would it be possible if you could provide some edit suggestions for mine? I had nominated it once before but it did not go through because I was not able to get enough reviews, and I would like to see it promoted this time. — Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 22:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
I'll take a look Cas Liber (talk· contribs) 11:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict...please fill out my survey?
Hello :)
I am writing my MA dissertation on Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I noticed that you have contributed to those pages. My dissertation will look at the process of collaborative knowledge production on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the effect it has on bias in the articles. This will involve understanding the profiles and motivations of editors, contention/controversy and dispute resolution in the talk pages, and bias in the final article.
For more information, you can check out my meta-wiki research page or my user page, where I will be posting my findings when I am done.
I would greatly appreciate if you could take 5 minutes to fill out this quick surveybefore 8 August 2021.
Participation in this survey is entirely voluntary and anonymous. There are no foreseeable risks nor benefits to you associated with this project.
I hadn't heard/noticed anything more about the Good Article review this past week so I just wanted to make sure things were still going okay. I think I have made the improvements requested at Talk:1873–74 Scottish Cup/GA1, I couldn't find anything more about why certain teams did/didn't compete so I don't think I can expand that any further. If you've any more thoughts about the article, I'd love to hear them.
And thanks for taking the time to review it. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Sorry - been adulting (i.e. doing tax) - will get back on it Cas Liber (talk· contribs) 23:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
No worries, I know the feeling. Thanks though, it's much appreciated. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
On 1 August 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Great blue turaco, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that according to Mbuti tradition, eating a great blue turaco(living example pictured) while pregnant may result in a difficult delivery or birth deformity? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Great blue turaco. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Great blue turaco), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
pls dont forget oz biota when creating new stubs - regardless of how distracted by more important things - it always helps, ta. That said trust all is well. JarrahTree 06:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
okay Cas Liber (talk· contribs) 06:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
ta despite setbacks of time, reality (aka the late douglas adams hitch hiker scripts and the problems of reality) and real life the oz biota thingo livesJarrahTree 06:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in my recent RFA
I appreciate your support and trust in my recent run for admin. I've had an interesting first few weeks and am learning a lot by being able to better watch (through tools) what admins do. Please call on me if you see making an error, or if you just need help. Thanks again. BusterD (talk) 18:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for September 2, 2021. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 2, 2021. Congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi Cas, hope you're well. Are you aware of these findings from a trial on the Portuguese WP? Long story short: Workload for admins is down more than 70%, account registrations are up, and editor retention and content contributions have been solid for the last three quarters since they turned off IP editing last October.
wow Cas Liber (talk· contribs) 09:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Sorghum intrans
Your stub Sorghum intrans says "Sorghum timorense, commonly known as Darwin canegrass ..." and has S. intrans in the infobox. Abductive (reasoning) 05:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
whoops, fixed now Cas Liber (talk· contribs) 06:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jameson's mamba 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 Dracophyllum -- Dracophyllum (talk) 08:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
The article Jameson's mamba you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jameson's mamba for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dracophyllum -- Dracophyllum (talk) 00:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Help!
Cas, would you mind using your special powers to undo a move I made in error yesterday pls - Kells crozier should go back back to Kells Crozier. Reason: "Proper name"[9] and I am thick stupid. Sound as always and here is some nice Krautrock in return[10]. Ceoil (talk) 07:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Done - nice thingy that and nice tune too...Cas Liber (talk· contribs) 08:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
You are the man, thanks!!!! Ceoil (talk) 08:04, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Incredibly, as it should have been disastrous, that really, really works. I'm obsessed with [11] for the last 6 months; start at c. 54 mins in. Ceoil (talk) 08:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
The bass line of the pink noise remix reminds me of this. Yes - sounds good that one. Cas Liber (talk· contribs) 08:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Wow, thats a great spot,. Yeah, the bass there is unusually groovy for JD, but then again is there no end to what Hooky can do. Ceoil (talk) 08:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Was always one of the better Warsaw songs, but, after 30 years!!!, listening to it anew now in that context. Ceoil (talk) 08:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Casliber. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Wellertalk 15:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)