Cas, I'm pinging you and all your responsible talk page stalkers about a race horse article, California Chrome, which is GA- class now, to ask that anyone who does vandal patrol please watchlist it for the next two weeks. I have been the lead editor on the article, but I need all the eyes I can get to help. The horse is to run for the Triple Crown at the 2014 Belmont Stakes on June 7. The article is getting very high traffic for a horse article (over 250K hits this month) and we had some real PITA vandalism on both Derby day (where some troll posted - obviously inaccurately - that the horse died) and Preakness day (where someone who should know better went in and erased half the article in random places) plus the usual kiddie nonsense; due to the nature of horse racing, the vandalism hits fast and because several people are also trying to legitimately update the article at the same time, reversions can become tricky. I was turned down for a request to give it temporary semi through Belmont day, but the problem is that the vandalism problem will hit in about a 3-hour period, so after the fact protection will be rather useless. I'm going to try again to get semi for at least 24 hours on either side of the race, but in the meantime, I need human eyes. Also, if anyone wants to do an informal peer review along the way, I'm probably going to take it to FAC after the Belmont. Many thanks in advance. Montanabw(talk)18:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The BLP policy is intended to protect people from defimation or negative misrepresentation. It is not intended to "protect" an article from being filled with true but promotionally-toned or other positive but unencyclopedic material.
This page needs heavy watchlisting (I've asked WikiProject Medicine participants to watchlist the page) but I don't think it needs semi-protection, particularly indefinite semi-protecting.
If you think it needs protecting, I would ask you to consider shortening the time to a few weeks and I would ask you to consider replacing the protection with PC1 protection so non-logged in editors and new editors can edit the article, even if their changes aren't immediately visible. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I could leave you the usual {{FA congrats}} template for Grus (constellation) and point you politely in the direction of TFAR, but in your case it would be both inadequate and superfluous! A hearty congratulations for reaching this milestone and many thanks for your nominations at TFAR. Very best wishes, BencherliteTalk18:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a note to let the main editors of Boletus luridus know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on June 20, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at present, please ask Bencherlite (talk·contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 20, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:
Boletus luridus, commonly known as the lurid bolete, is a fungus of the bolete family, found in deciduous woodlands on chalky soils in Asia, Europe, and eastern North America. Fruit bodies arise in summer and autumn and may be abundant. It is a solid bolete with an olive-brown cap up to 20 cm (8 in) in diameter, with small reddish pores on the underside. The stout ochre stem reaches dimensions of 8–14 cm (3–6 in) tall and 1–3 cm (0.4–1.2 in) wide, and is patterned with a reddish meshwork. Like several other red-pored boletes, it stains blue when bruised or cut. Though edible when cooked, it can cause gastric upset when eaten raw and can be confused with the poisonousBoletus satanas. Hence some guidebooks recommend avoiding consumption altogether. Boletus luridus has been implicated in causing adverse reactions when eaten with alcohol similar to those caused by the compound coprine, though laboratory testing has not revealed any evidence of coprine in the mushroom. Boletus luridus is mycorrhizal, forming a symbiotic association with deciduous trees such as oak, birch and beech, and has been found to have a growth-enhancing effect with conifers in experiments. (Full article...)
You (and your talk-page stalkers) may also be interested to hear that there have been some changes at the TFA requests page recently. Nominators no longer need to calculate how many "points" an article has, the instructions have been simplified, and there's a new nomination system using templates based on those used for DYK suggestions. Please consider nominating another article, or commenting on an existing nomination, and leaving some feedback on your experience. Thank you. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The first edition of The Pulse has been released. The Pulse will be a regular newsletter documenting the goings-on at WPMED, including ongoing collaborations, discussions, articles, and each edition will have a special focus. That newsletter is here.
The newsletter has been sent to the talk pages of WP:MED members bearing the {{User WPMed}} template. To opt-out, please leave a message here or simply remove your name from the mailing list. Because this is the first issue, we are still finding out feet. Things like the layout and content may change in subsequent editions. Please let us know what you think, and if you have any ideas for the future, by leaving a message here.
Please accept this modest token of everyone's admiration, in lieu of an unwieldy 100 Natural History Barnstars! I held off from giving you the award before as I felt you were too senior for that, but 100 FAs can't be ignored. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To: Casliber; In reference to your page protection of Sigmund Freud, there appears to be a claim made by a previous editor that Freud was a regular professor in Europe, which does not match with the biography of Freud written by Prof Peter Gay. I have tried to explain this on the Talk page there, but another editor appears to disagree, and is apparently moving in the direction of "adapting" Prof Peter Gay to state matters never stated in his book. Misquotation of a living author creates other issues as well. Could you glance at this? FelixRosch (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for looking at this. User:Allmancer has decided to decline your generous offer to discuss this on Talk prior to re-posting his/her own version of the text, and has gone ahead and re-posted it without heeding anything you generously offered on the Talk page as an option. I have put this on Talk there and on his/her own Talk page. Should the Page possibly be flagged as BLP to try to get User:Allmancer to wait for consensus prior to his/her multiple re-posts of this issue. Your comment from yesterday seems to put the discussion on a good path and perhaps you could amplify it in some way. FelixRosch (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Previous user is again reverting text to his/her own preference in spite of your generous offer to provide useful material for the Talk page. User:Allmancer is now showing a disregard against two editors (your comments and my comments) trying to engage with him on the Talk page. BLP issue is a real one and Prof Peter Gay is a living author who is being misquoted for the personal reasons of User:Allmancer. I would Support you if you could place the German title into the Lede in order to protect what Prof Peter Gay at Yale University states in his book, or to delete the BLP reference until the Talk page discussion reaches consensus. Either way, the misquote of a living author Prof Peter Gay should be protected until the BLP issue reaches consensus on the Talk page. It would be preferable to see your version of the edit posted, and to avoid reporting User:Allmancer for multiple reverts. Your amplification from yesterday to User:Allmancer was ignored by him/her again. Possibly you could add your message to mine on his/her Talk page since that editor is ignoring both comments for yourself and myself who are seeking to resolve the matter on the Talk page. FelixRosch (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment from Saturday. Over the week-end i was able to request further comments on the blp noticeboard with results that I have reposted on the Talk page for Freud. At present it looks like 3 editors supporting the inclusion of the German title for a.o. in German in order to avoid all ambiguity problems. User:Allmancer has declined your offer to start an RFC over the last 3 days for his/her view, and after 7 (seven) days has not been able to provide the quotation directly from Prof Peter Gay's book to support his/her position. Given that Prof Peter Gay is a living author with blp concerns, possibly it would be helpful if you could close out the issue with whatever your decision is for it, and return the Freud Page to its previous protection status which would be beneficial to all users in general. The current status appears to be 3 Supports for using the German title (including yours), 1 Oppose, and 1 n.b. comment. With appreciation for your looking after the Freud page in the past and during this last week. FelixRosch (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Read you are a regular quiz show contestant. I've been on a few in my time (Sale of the Century, Flashbacks(?)- ABC Quiz Show c. 2000, and Temptation) so we might have come across each other, knowing what such a small world the professional quiz show contestant circuit is. And a big "well done" for all your work here. --Roisterer (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was on Jeopardy (3 nights) in 1993, Temptation and "Sale in early 2000s, 6 nights on Wheel of Fortune in 2001 and 3 times on Einstein Factor (04,06,08). Agree is a small circuit - I ran into a few people more than once :) Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 03:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dudes! What the heck are you guys even saying? I came to Wikipedia's reference ref once in a while to ask for help. I'm not a freaking troll. I have better things to do in life than to waste my precious time trolling on Wikipedia. I hate trolling. Last question I asked on the ref is probably a few months ago. I have never trolled in Wikipedia, so I have no idea how can you even try to say that I'm trolling? I asked for help, if only someone just translated it in the beginning without insulting me then nothing would have happened. All I wanted is to get the letter translated and this is what I got? First, I was insulted then being framed as a troll without any solid evidence. Making grammatical mistake is not even close to be the same as trolling. By your definition, almost everyone on the internet would be trolling. The internet space is not the same as an English class. Nobody gives a damn about grammar; there is just no time for that. People only care about getting their points across; that's all it matters. Seriously. I used to respect Wikipedia as a helpful source, but after this incident, I'm not sure if I can trust Wikipedia if the people like you guys are running this place. You guys are turning away readers and help-seeker like me. Good job on that! (sarcasm). And bye, I'm out of here now. Someone was kindly enough to help me translate it. My purpose here is done. I have no reason to be anymore. However, you guys pissed me off so much by framing me as a troll, so I just have to speak up before I go. That's how I roll through life. Ok bye and peace!75.168.122.245 (talk) 05:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man! Would you mind doing a peer review for "Sleeping Dogs (video game)"? I just finished polishing it and would really appreciate any feedback you could give, specially on the front section, develoment and dlc tabs. URDNEXT (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be a pest, but could I trouble you for a revisit of your initial comments at the Reculver FAC? Things have moved on quite a bit, I think. Apologies if you're still watching and waiting! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I just thought that every blocked user is supposed to have a template because they should be able to see that they have the right to request to be unblocked, that's all. - Hoops gza (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What’s going on here please, regarding the Palmeria plant genus article?
Right, it was just a redirect to the diambiguation page...but since it came from there it was unneeded and better deleted. THanks for the link - genus page coming up....Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 02:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I made a lot of changes to the Winnipeg introduction, and am wondering if I did more harm than good, or is it okay/better (as of 9:44pm Winnipeg time)? Is the Winnipeg article still looking like a featured article?
@Jd.101: Right (1) - the cree bit is good, but MUST be in the body of the text as well, and the inline reference is better in body but NOT lead. (2) capitalising "West" is good I think (3) but trimming last paragraph not a good idea - I'd revert that subtraction if I were you. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 02:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I re-added the last paragraph part listing the festivals and sports teams, thats what you suggested right? Also, (sorry Im just not sure): when you say the cree bit must be in the body, does that mean in the history section? --Jd.101 (talk) 03:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear that me and User:Cwmhiraeth might wish to collaborate with writing on the Wiki. Prior to this, there are a few things that may need a facilitator (informal) in a discussion about this on my talk page, and I wondered if you could assist, even in a small way. Snowman (talk) 09:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have thought about it a bit more, and I think that collaboration over long time period with User:Cwmhiraeth will depend on how she responds to my comments to her recent allegation made on my talk page that I harassed her during her editor review, see her edit. Her editor review was an invitations for comments and it was primarily about aspects of her mistakes. If she could understand my role in protecting the Wiki from her mistakes as a kindness to readers, then she might see my role in a more benign light. I wonder why did she made this allegation on my talk page yesterday, so long after her editor review? I trust that her work is now better. Snowman (talk) 13:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, with your offers of collaboration on science topics, I will start to think about anything relevant. I am not in a hurry, but I would like to set up a suitable environment for me to do some editing when the weather turns cold here in the UK next Autumn. There are lots of pages to choose from for collaborations and I will not be offended if you thought any of my suggestions were not suitable. What do you think about the medical topic "imperforate hymen"? It is a page in the scope of both WP Anatomy and WP Medicine. I am not in a hurry, my planning time scale is months over the English summer. Snowman (talk) 13:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I find it hard to get enthusiastic about that article. I keep a sort of dashboard at User:Casliber/To-Do of articles I am interested in. I will have a think. Something narrow enough so the scope can be defined easily yet maybe interesting and broad enough so it isn't very esoteric. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I sort of see what you mean about it being esoteric. I thought of it as one of the less complex potential GAs, because it is an easily defined topic, and probably interesting to many. There are many more to choose from. Snowman (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delirium is a psychiatry and general medical topic. Delirium is a broad topic and improving the article looks difficult and I probably would only be interested in a few parts of it. I am interested in human pathology, anything medical, and general science. There is no need to focus entirely on anatomy articles, but I would like to see test the ground and improve some anatomy articles preferable with some clinical content. Paradoxically, my experience has been that displaying expertise on the Wiki is problematic and results in being cross-questioned for being correct or criticized for fixing things. I would have thought that if someone comes along and fixes a number of problems including misunderstandings and ambiguities then editors would be grateful, but it does not work like that here and instead someone is more likely to say that I have been editing too much without discussion (or something like that) or even being reverted with the edit summary "see talk page". Of course, I make some accidental mistakes as well and editing here can be humbling. I was generally delighted when the erudite User:Rabo3 helped to edit parrot articles that I had expanded a bit in my role as an armature ornithologist. I am saddened that he has left the Wiki now, but I hope he returns sometime. I might be wrong, but I vaguely recall that he got into erudite discussions about bird classification with other ornithologists (that went over my head) and the last straw was when he had some work reverted. On the Wiki, I think that I am happiest illustrating and editing parrot and other bird articles as a hobbyist. I have to go off line now and do some tasks. Snowman (talk) 15:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snowman wrote above "Her editor review was an invitations for comments and it was primarily about aspects of her mistakes. If she could understand my role in protecting the Wiki from her mistakes as a kindness to readers, then she might see my role in a more benign light. I wonder why did she made this allegation on my talk page yesterday, so long after her editor review?"
My editor review should not have been about identifying my mistakes, although that is what it turned out to be. It should have been a proper assessment of what I do, the good points and the bad. I have no objection to you correcting any errors I make but there was no need to make a great song and dance about it. In the articles Salt and Sugar, it was not so much that I had got the medical aspects wrong, but that the studies I found and referred to had been superseded by others, and I had no idea how touchy WikiProject Medicine was about such things. I'm not even sure what terrible faults I committed in Anatomy because I was pretty fed up with your part of the review by then and just switched off. Nor did I agree with all the comments made by Af...... in her blog, some of which were just bunkum. When I joined the Wikipediocracy forum and started pointing out her errors there, she closed the thread down pretty quickly. As for why I mentioned the editor review on your talk page yesterday, that was because you were annoying another editor. I hoped that by collaborating with me now on a GAN, you could move away from the course of conduct that led LT910001 to complain at An/I. So, what about working together on a parrot or some other bird article, in between your bouts of enjoying the summer sunshine. I guess Casliber is lucky, I see the winter temperature in Sydney yesterday was 19°C, much the same as it is in the UK as we approach the longest day. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Cwmhiraeth - problem is, if stuff needs fixing, then the fact that it is asked about in a manner which annoys the writer does not take away from the fact that it needs reviewing. I just had a look at cervix and it is looking rather good now (I don't know what it was missing as I didn't have time to look in detail before the lengthy discussions), but there's still a couple of things missing. Anyway.....Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 21:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber you have completely missed the point of the AN/I if you think it was written because of a "manner which annoys the writer". I would point out that, like SMR, the "fixing" you have done is, for the most part, stylistic. As I hope you realise, writing style is almost completely subjective and yours, mine, or any other users opinion of style is an opinion, not something that "needs fixing". --LT910001 (talk) 22:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please strongly consider removing the semiprotection on the Wikipedia:Reference Desks. Perhaps something changed when I wasn't looking, but in my experience, we've never protected any of the desks for that long. (Typical protections, it seems to me, have been measured in hours.) Very many of the questioners at the desks are unregistered or brand-new, not-yet-autoconfirmed users. Yes, there's some trolling, but we have got be able to deal with that some other way; semiprotecting a desk for days or weeks leads to way too much collateral damage. Thank you. --Steve Summit (talk) 22:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I should have said, see also this thread on the talk page.
I had a look at your suggestion, the "Human skull" article, and some literature. My book has 57 pages of intense osteology alone, and it is not going to be easy to summarize that in one article. On the other hand, finger is quite a popular article, but it would need a lot of animal stuff. What about Henry Gray, Gray's Anatomy, or a new article "List of editions of Gray's Anatomy", see the list of the talk page for Gray's Anatomy. CGJung is a very popular article, but I would not find expanding that easy. A student has expanded an article on Cranial nerves, which at first glance looks very good and is awaiting GA review. Snowman (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I changed my mind and decided to attack cervix, partly to get a grasp on hte recent dustup but also because it looks like it might not be far off a shot at FAC with some tidying and sorting out of anatomy. Jung I must admit I am not overly interested in expanding. Cranial nerves might be worth looking at. Will have a scan of all suggestions - today has turned out busier than I ahd hoped though. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 02:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay with the postscript that's there. We can use the template next time. Thanks for the report, but please create a new page based on the template next time, rather than editing the template itself directly. ;-) Katie Chan (WMUK) (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
Hi, I'm A.Minkowiski. I'm fighting against vandalism and my main focus is to revert vandal edits and reporting them.
I would be very happy if I become an admin to fight against vandals directly. First I was an long term IP editor and now, few months before I created my account and started fighting against vandalism. I have requested same message to others if some one look at my work. I hope to hear from you soon. Plus, I'm familiar with blocking policy and other policies too. Thank you. A.Minkowiski _Lets t@lk12:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken a look - can you tell me your most severe conflict here on WP? I think you need to be around for a a few more months yet and try and write some content. I can help with that. I think an attempt now is very unlikely to succeed. Sorry. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree with you 100%. My main focus is fighting against vandalism, monitoring WP:AIV and review block request and blocking users etc. As I started my editing in fighting against vandalism. I wanted to be an admin so that I can perform my job directly against vandalism, and I am well aware about policies regarding blocking users, unblocking users, SPI etc. I want to perform such job. I would be thankful to you if you put my nomination for adminship. A.Minkowiski _Lets t@lk15:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to put anyone through it if they can't pass. Right now I don't think you'd pass. I think it needs to be a few months more. If you run now and are unsuccessful, it will make it harder in a few months' time. Sorry. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Casliber. I have decided to withdraw my nomination of esophagus. I am feeling like an underclass of citizen, one who is allowed to spend hours researching and editing articles to bring them up to GA standards, as independently verified by other editors, yet who is too "amateurish" to determine the final prose, layout, or style of an article. This is not an issue of WP:OWN. This is an issue of WP:ETIQUETTE. There is one user (me) who has done the majority of researching and information-building for these articles, and another set of users who decide to rewrite these articles, preserving the research which I have done, but removing any trace of my involvement.
It is extremely demoralising to be treated this way. I'd ask you to strongly reconsider your planned edits of Parathyroid gland, which is already a GA, and instead pick one of the 5,065 other anatomical articles to improve -- they sure as heck need it, and a lot more than articles that are already at GA. --LT910001 (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
LT910001 I am sorry you feel like this - unfortunately for the GA process to have standards and credibility it needs to have some rigorous review. Facts are facts and we're writing an encyclopedia. medical articles have been under a high degree of scrutiny. Look I am really happy that someone is keen on improving these articles and the work you've done on cervix has been integral to getting it to where it is now. However, the article still lacked some rather important material (layers for instance, structure in other mammals, adequate coverage of screening) and had some factual errors. You can complain all you like about writing style but it doesn't change the fact that there were factual errors that needed fixing, which other editors have reviewed and tweaked. I am concerned there will be other errors in articles that have passed GA that we need to fix. If you make factual errors then WP:ETIQUETTE is trumped by this. Don't take it personally. I have been hammered in reviews before. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 01:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about factual accuracy and I am very happy to collaborate. But let me explain why I am feeling pretty upset. I have put a lot of effort into revitalising WPANATOMY. I put many hours into drafting these articles, such as Esophagus for GAN. A user begins to follow me from article to article, rewriting large sections and making a variety of comments, day on day, for 15 days straight, including comments that the articles shouldn't even be at the GAN. At the same time the user concurrently makes a huge amount of edits to the articles, usually on unrelated matters. This user comes along and makes a staggering number of edits to prose. I ask the user to discuss this and am accused of WP:OWN and told by you that this purely is a matter of factual accuracy and not editorial style. A reviewer (you) takes up the review and asks me to re-correct issues of prose that have arisen as a result of the user who is following me. To top it all off, the same reviewer (you) and the same user completely rewrite an article that has already made it to GA after promotion, and expresses an interest in doing the same to all the other GA or GAN that I have currently nominated. I would be not be upset if these were targetted at specific areas of the articles. But they are not targeted, they are wholesale, they do or will involve every article I have nominated for GA, and then when asked about the rationale or for some degree of care I am told well, one ought to be staunch, and this is purely a matter of factual integrity. The hundreds of edits, mostly stylistic, that you and this user have made say otherwise.
To summarise, I feel like I have put a lot of effort into these articles to get them above a 'threshold', and above that threshold you and another user decide they would like to WP:OWN the article by making huge edits in a short time, and rewriting large portions, and by insulting me, calling me "amateurish", unable to withstand criticism, and writing articles that need to be "fixed". I am concurrently expected to be responsive to any concerns you raise as reviewer, yet simultaneously expect the article to have a large rewrite by the same reviewer (you) in the future. Well, I think that's enough for me, I see no reason to be voluntarily subjected to this, and I wish you and Wikipedia well. Goodbye, --LT910001 (talk) 03:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
LT910001 When I copyedit an article or correct or rearrange the prose, I often have no idea who has written what, so I wasn't deliberately focussing on your material at the Peer Review. If you are getting that impression then I am sorry that that has happened. I appreciate this can be a steep learning curve and am appreciative of your enthusiasm
Often rearranging prose on complex material can be like kneading dough - the first draught might have some problems, so it is more closely aligned with the source, which then makes the prose a bit cumbersome, so is then kneaded some more to make it both accurate and pleasurable to read. There are plenty of times material has been rejigged back and forth to get it right. peer reviews are helpful here as there is no time limit or obligation to overcome any particular hurdle.
I was not the reviewer at the GAN, but merely offering some advice after the fact. Take it as a compliment that after looking at cervix that I felt it was not actually far off a shot at WP:FAC, where it can be co-nominated by multiple editors.
Look, at the end of the day I do feel you're a net positive. I apologise that my interactions have made you feel like you're being put on the spot. I hope you can take that on board, take heart and keep working on material, but if you can't then you can't, in which case take care, good luck and god bless. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 04:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, "god bless" my foot! Wikipedia, and these two projects in particular, really needs contributors of the calibre of LT910001! (Please excuse the uninvited but friendly intrusion here.) 86.128.169.211 (talk) 07:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not possible to quantify the loss of a human relationship, but if I were to guess at the cost of hiring paid staff to replace the time that LT910001 gave to us, I might guess at 20,000 USD per year assuming a low rate considering his expertise and considering that I expect he lives in an expensive country. Since I collaborated with this user I miss this person more, and with him being a medical professional that makes him even more valuable, and with him having built community relationships that are now broken is another loss and demoralizing to everyone at WikiProject Med. There is also the potential investment which the community had in him, as when someone has been happy here for over a year, we might have expected for them to be a supporter long term.
I do not blame you personally Casliber but there is no fair call which results in the loss of a community member. We at WP:MED are suffering a real loss as a result of this, and while I do not want you to feel personal fault for this, something went wrong and something needs to change. I regret regularly losing my wiki friends because it hurts. I know you and I worry less about what you do than masses of other people not having your experience doing whatever it is that makes other people leave. I expect that you will never again be in a situation in which someone says they are leaving because of you, just because I think now you are sensitive to the risk and consequences, and again, you did nothing wrong and ought not feel bad. I blame the community structure and the lack of options for settling disputes. I worked with LT910001 and I needed that person around. Again, this is not about you, but I do not want my friends to feel unsafe here. I made a proposal at meta:Grants:IdeaLab/Victim support services. I am not sure what to do, but I do not want people to feel victimized, without an option for recourse, and happier to leave than stay. Whenever there is a problem I want resolution, not to lose my colleagues. Blue Rasberry (talk)19:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Blue Rasberry. It can be a sad thing, but friends come and go. What sort of pages do you like to edit? I usually edit wildlife pages, where as an amateur I am often bewildered by changes in taxonomy, so my edits tend to ovoid complex issues. My favorite role is as an amateur illustrator for wildlife page. I might edit technical articles from time to time; nevertheless, I am reluctant to participate in User Casliber's plans to improve the skull article, partly because there are 57 large pages of intense osteology alone in one of my books. Snowman (talk) 13:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I truly appreciate all the times when I have seen you mediate conflict and make Wikipedia a better place. I appreciate your commitment to training so many people on Wikipedia and being so friendly to so many people. Blue Rasberry (talk)19:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My sentiments entirely. And I hope you don't feel I'm targeting you in some way. I'm certainly not. Many years and various heated discussions over the exact wording of peer-review submissions has taught something me how delicate writerly and editorial feelings can be, and the need for mutual understanding. Unfortunately, over the internet it's harder to get together for a really good coffee. Best wishes, 86.128.169.211 (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No no, discussion is needed on episodes like this - unfortunately I have ended up contributing to reasons why LT910001 left, which is sad and I regret. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice to talk over a cup of coffee about how a trickcyclist knows about cervical cytology, CIN (I, II and III), carcinoma in situ, invasive cancer, and cancer at a cellular level. Is "invasive cancer" really a tautology? Snowman (talk) 13:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Epacris impressa 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 Wilhelmina Will -- Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cas, I am not in any hurry with the editing of the Cervix article or I do not mind moving on to consider and enhance other articles. In fact, the weather forecast is good here this week, so I am planning doing some out-door work, and I might only be near my computer in the mornings, midday, or evenings. There is quite a lot of editing to be done on the "cervix" article, as I assume you must be aware, but it is shaping up and I can almost visualize the final layout now, except for the "other animals" stuff. Could you give me some idea of the timeline of your plans with the cervix article, if any. Incidentally, I hope that I can call you Cas (rather than the more formal term User Casliber), after all these years of collaborating on various projects on the wiki, and I include nominators and reviewers as collaborators. Call me Snow or Snowman, if you prefer this to the more formal version. Snowman (talk) 12:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Calling me cas is fine as that is my name and everyone calls me that in real life. I agree it looks in good shape except for the animals section and some cultural references - some of the links LT91001 look promising. I find a pause is often helpful to take stock before proceeding. I was musing on other anatomical articles and I did think of spleen as something sort of notable and definitive enough but hopefully modest enough to not be a too ambitious choice. I also plan on Sydney funnel-web spider after learning lessons from redback. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is screening with DNA tests for HPV DNA, which is used a lot were cytology is unreliable, as far as I am aware. It is also used as a combined test with cytology. Cytology reporting needs an extensive network of personnel including quality control systems. I would like to include something about the reporting nomenclatures for cervical cytology. Acetic acid test. Repeat smears. Colposcopy. More about the treatments of early ca cx. Not entirely sure of the scope of the article. I am not sure why there is not an article "human cx". Has anyone sang any songs about the fennel web? Snowman (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see the reason why you closed the discussion on the introduction of the cervix article, because I had added a comment on 2O June 2014 at 11:48 am and no one had replied prior to your putting a closing box around the discussion on 21 June 2014. I presented references of definitions that cancer and invasive cancer are different. I feel that by closing off this discussion, you have stifled discussion on this topic, without asking all of the participants of the discussion and without allowing the discussion to run its course. Have you seen the definition of carcinoma in situ in the Oxford Concise Medical Dictionary? This sort of reference is the sort of thing, which would advance the discussion on that topic? There is a very famous carcinoma in situ at the cervix, so the term "invasive cancer" had particular clarity here. Snowman (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snowman, I closed this as both places were becoming hard to follow becuase of their size and there was some acrimony and frustration expressed - furthermore the arguments of using "invasive" in the lead are tenuous and counterintuitive. In each case, there is nothing to be done by adding the word or excluding CIN from what we mean by cancer - if we are going to split hairs then CINI is precursor of CINII or CINIII - hence precursors of all neoplasia is what screening can find. Hence we either consider CIN under the cancer umbrella, but even if we don't it can be covered broadly - there is no need to exclude it from discussion be talking of invasive cancer in any of the three mentions of cervical cancer in the lead. You are not going to be able to convince either me or James (I hate to say, "trust me I'm a doctor" at this point but I do feel like saying it!) and it will lead to more problems. There are many other areas of the article that need attention. Let's work together on them. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 01:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a note to let the main editors of Banksia dentata know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on July 9, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at present, please ask Bencherlite (talk·contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 9, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:
Banksia dentata, commonly known as the tropical banksia, is a species of tree in the genusBanksia. It occurs across northern Australia, southern New Guinea and the Aru Islands. Growing as a gnarled tree to 7 m (23 ft) high, it has large green leaves up to 22 cm (8.7 in) long with toothed margins. The cylindrical yellow flower spikes, up to 13 cm (5 in) high, appear over the cooler months, attracting honeyeaters, sunbirds, the sugar glider and a variety of insects. Flowers fall off the ageing spikes, which swell and develop follicles containing up to two viable seeds each. Banksia dentata is one of the four original Banksia species collected by Sir Joseph Banks in 1770 (1773 depiction shown), and one of four species published in 1782 as part of Carolus Linnaeus the Younger's original description of Banksia. Within the genus, it is classified in the seriesSalicinae, a group of species from Australia's eastern states. Genetic studies show it is an early offshoot within the group. Banksia dentata is found in tropical grassland known as savanna, associated with Pandanus and Melaleuca. It regenerates from bushfire by regrowing from its woody base, known as a lignotuber. (Full article...)
You (and your talk-page stalkers) may also be interested to hear that there have been some changes at the TFA requests page recently. Nominators no longer need to calculate how many "points" an article has, the instructions have been simplified, and there's a new nomination system using templates based on those used for DYK suggestions. Please consider nominating another article, or commenting on an existing nomination, and leaving some feedback on your experience. Thank you. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Recently, I've come across a few problems where I have needed admin tools to fix an issue regarding our articles. For example, I recently had to make a post to AN so that somebody else could fix a cut-and-paste move I noticed. There are also times when I've had to do uncontroversial moves over redirects with history and have been unable to, and, in passing at RPP, PROD, and AfD, have seen backlogs over 24 hours. In addition, for the work I am currently doing on wiki, being able to view deleted history would be a great help.
As a result, I have been thinking of running for RfA, but I don't know whether or not I'd stand a chance at passing. Do you think that I would have a chance at the moment? I admit that I may not be the most frequent user of the tools, but I believe that I would be a net positive with them, and would not abuse them. A recall process would definitely be set up, since I believe in accountability.
You gotta think of reasons why folks might oppose - you've been around 4 years (a good thing), produced quality content (a good thing), have identified areas you'd work in (a good thing), and alot of your interest is opining and tidying up material of marginal notability (a good thing, even if your view is different to mine). Have a look at the three questions people get asked and double check community consensus view before answering optional ones. What are the worst disputes you've been in? You have a clean block log (good thing)...yeah if you want I can nominate you. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 04:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I think the worst conflict so far was probably around August 2013 when I felt that there was a certain user who was basically attempting to get any articles that I had prodded undeleted, even when I think that even you would find them to be non-notable (see, for example, the now-deleted history of SAO 49991). Fortunately, it seems to have been resolved amicably, with me conceding that a few articles be restored, while the other party conceded that most of the articles were not, in fact, notable. I thank you for the offer of nomination, and will probably take you up on it, but do you mind giving me a day or so to mull it over? StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a note to let the main editors of Leo Minor know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on July 21, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at present, please ask Bencherlite (talk·contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 21, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:
You (and your talk-page stalkers) may also be interested to hear that there have been some changes at the TFA requests page recently. Nominators no longer need to calculate how many "points" an article has, the instructions have been simplified, and there's a new nomination system using templates based on those used for DYK suggestions. Please consider nominating another article, or commenting on an existing nomination, and leaving some feedback on your experience. Thank you. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had recently expanded a filmography and nominated it for FL. 9 days have passed since it was nominated but no one has commented yet. This is my first FL candidate. I would be glad if you leave a comment on the nomination page. If you don't want to comment, then no problem.--Skr15081997 (talk) 06:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On 28 June 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article BH Crucis, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the star BH Crucis has become redder and (on average) brighter since it was discovered in 1969? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/BH Crucis. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
After an extremely close race, Round 3 is over. 244 points secured a place in Round 4, which is comparable to previous years- 321 was required in 2013, while 243 points were needed in 2012. Pool C's Godot13 (submissions) was the round's highest scorer, mostly due to a 32 featured pictures, including both scans and photographs. Also from Pool C, Casliber (submissions) finished second overall, claiming three featured articles, including the high-importance Grus (constellation). Third place was Pool B's , whose contributions included featured articles Russian battleship Poltava (1894) and Russian battleship Peresvet. Pool C saw the highest number of participants advance, with six out of eight making it to the next round.
The judges would like to remind participants to update submission pages promptly. This means that content can be checked, and allows those following the competition (including those participating) to keep track of scores effectively. This round has seen discussion about various aspects of the WikiCup's rules and procedures. Those interested in the competition can be assured that formal discussions about how next year's competition will work will be opened shortly, and all are welcome to voice their views then. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk·contribs) The ed17 (talk·contribs) and Miyagawa (talk·contribs) 18:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 53 Persei variable may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
], [[HD 13745]] and [[HD 19374]] had been found to exhibit both Beta Cephei and SPB variability.]].<ref name=decat07>{{cite journal | title = Observational Asteroseismology of slowly pulsating B
').<ref name=Benson1996/> The foliage serves as food for the caterpillars of the moonlight jewel (''[[Hypochrysops delicia]]'', imperial hairstreak (''[[Jalmenus evagoras]]''), amethyst
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Acacia decurrens may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
the caterpillars of the double-spotted line blue (''[[Nacaduba biocellata]]''), moonlight jewel (''[[Hypochrysops delicia]]'', imperial hairstreak (''[[Jalmenus evagoras]]''), ictinus blue (''[[
Hi, I am requesting a peer review for Hamish Peacock. Peacock is an Australian javelin thrower who has competed at: Senior, Junior and Youth World Championships and is competing in the Glasgow Commonwealth Games in the coming weeks. I would greatly appreciate if you could review this article.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited XX Tauri, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Taurus. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
13k hits ;) - similar to when it was DYK here in 2010, remember? Planned for April Fool 2015 TFA, as you probably know, but it would not work with the German name, that just mentions drumming, not invisible, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! my hook is in Queue 4 and will be in the main page in 2 hours. But I hadn't proposed this hook. in fact my hook was changed before moving to prep area. The current hook is not suitable and attractive. Can it be changed? Mhhossein (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On 11 July 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article W Serpentis, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that W Serpentis is a binary star system in which one star is transferring large amounts of material to the other? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/W Serpentis. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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 Liber. I would like to have access to the full articles of those papers you have to improve Titanoceratops your help would be greatly appreciated, as it should be fairly easy for someone else to review it. I have modified the Distinguishing anatomical features section, and once the articles are added it should be ready for another Ga review. Thanks for your help, IJReid (talk) 02:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - send me an email via 'email user' function at left - I can't attach files if I email you via this method but can if I reply to your email. Happy to help - cheers, Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 03:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Sorry to bother you again Casliber, but I am not certain that I emailed you, or that your have replied yet. Please correct me if I'm wrong but based on my inbox I did not send an email to you, and have not yet received one either. I am not sure if wikipedia mail appears on the sender's inbox, or if you have replied to my message, but I am not certain that my email is working correctly. If you would like, I can resend the email to you so I can get the papers. If I am being hasty I apologize, just I am concerned about my mail functioning. IJReid (talk) 00:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it finally appeared :) Thanks again. BTW, do you want to help with the expansion or are you busy at the moment? IJReid (talk) 14:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what content from Maiorino (2013) I can add to Titanoceratops, all the info on the genus from the other articles has been added (I think), but Titanoceratops is not mentioned in Maiorino. PS: Is there anything else for me to change before I renominate, the Distinguishing characteristics section can potentially be removed? IJReid (talk) 04:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cursory glance suggests it looks ok - just make sure you're happy that no bits are too closely paraphrased and all the material is faithful to the sources. Bit busy for a while. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 05:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shell star, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pavo. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
This is the first of a series of newsletters for Wikiproject Medicine's Translation Task Force. Our goal is to make all the medical knowledge on Wikipedia available to the world, in the language of your choice.
note: you will not receive future editions of this newsletter unless you *sign up*; you received this version because you identify as a member of WikiProject Medicine
Spotlight - Simplified article translation
Wikiproject Medicine started translating simplified articles in February 2014. We now have 45 simplified articles ready for translation, of which the first on African trypanosomiasis or sleeping sickness has been translated into 46 out of ~100 languages. This list does not include the 33 additional articles that are available in both full and simple versions.
Our goal is to eventually translate 1,000 simplified articles. This includes:
We are looking for subject area leads to both create articles and recruit further editors. We need people with basic medical knowledge who are willing to help out. This includes to write, translate and especially integrate medical articles.
What's happening?
IEG grant
CFCF - "IEG beneficiary" and editor of this newsletter.
I've (CFCF) taken on the role of community organizer for this project, and will be working with this until December. The goals and timeline can be found here, and are focused on getting the project on a firm footing and to enable me to work near full-time over the summer, and part-time during the rest of the year. This means I will be available for questions and ideas, and you can best reach me by mail or on my talk page.
Wikimania 2014
For those going to London in a month's time (or those already nearby) there will be at least one event for all medical editors, on Thursday August 7th. See the event page, which also summarizes medicine-related presentations in the main conference. Please pass the word on to your local medical editors.
Integration progress
There has previously been some resistance against translation into certain languages with strong Wikipedia presence, such as Dutch, Polish, and Swedish. What was found is that thre is hardly any negative opinion about the the project itself; and any such critique has focused on the ways that articles have being integrated. For an article to be usefully translated into a target-Wiki it needs to be properly Wiki-linked, carry proper citations and use the formatting of the chosen target language as well as being properly proof-read. Certain large Wikis such as the Polish and Dutch Wikis have strong traditions of medical content, with their own editorial system, own templates and different ideas about what constitutes a good medical article. For example, there are not MEDRS (Polish,German,Romanian,Persian) guidelines present on other Wikis, and some Wikis have a stronger background of country-specific content.
Swedish Translation into Swedish has been difficult in part because of the amount of free, high quality sources out there already: patient info, for professionals. The same can be said for English, but has really given us all the more reason to try and create an unbiased and free encyclopedia of medical content. We want Wikipedia to act as an alternative to commercial sources, and preferably a really good one at that. Through extensive collaborative work and by respecting links and Sweden specific content the last unintegrated Swedish translation went live in May.
Dutch Dutch translation carries with it special difficulties, in part due to the premises in which the Dutch Wikipedia is built upon. There is great respect for what previous editors have created, and deleting or replacing old content can be frowned upon. In spite of this there are success stories: Anafylaxie.
Polish Translation and integration into Polish also comes with its own unique set of challenges. The Polish Wikipedia has long been independent and works very hard to create high quality contentfor Polish audience. Previous translation trouble has lead to use of unique templates with unique formatting, not least among citations. Add to this that the Polish Wikipedia does not allow template redirects and a large body of work is required for each article. (This is somewhat alleviated by a commissioned Template bot - to be released). - List of articles for integration
Arabic The Arabic Wikipedia community has been informed of the efforts to integrate content through both the general talk-page as well as through one of the major Arabic Wikipedia facebook-groups: مجتمع ويكيبيديا العربي, something that has been heralded with great enthusiasm.
Integration guides
Integration is the next step after any translation. Despite this it is by no means trivial, and it comes with its own hardships and challenges. Previously each new integrator has needed to dive into the fray with little help from previous integrations. Therefore we are creating guides for specific Wikis that make integration simple and straightforward, with guides for specific languages, and for integrating on small Wikis.
Instructions on how to integrate an article may be found here [5]
News in short
To come
Medical editor census - Medical editors on different Wikis have been without proper means of communication. A preliminary list of projects is available here.
While I genuinely welcome the discussion you have started here, it would also have been nice, given that we have worked together the odd time, if you could have joined the existing discussion at my talk page about the same matter. You are still very welcome to do so. --John (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It appears all my sarcasm today (most of it anyway) was pointed in your direction. It's always meant light-heartedly so I hope I didn't upset you by poking fun at your stars (I do go thermonuclear occasionally, you'll know it when you see it and then be thankful that it's virtual here). Belle (talk) 23:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On 18 July 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article S Antliae, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that at the time of its discovery, S Antliae had the shortest period of any known variable star? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/S Antliae. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
As you may know, I write for the Signpost, basically Wikipedia's newsletter. I'd like to do a feature on the semifinalists, would you be willing to provide, say, 250 to 500 words saying: (1.) Why did you join the Wikicup? (2.) What you you hope to get out of it? and (3.) Which of your contributions to the Wikicup are your favourites?
Not quite sure how I'll order them - I'll probably make the ed17 decide, as, you know, Conflict of Interest: I am a semifinalist. I'd imagine point order or alphabetical or the like.
You are very much welcomed to observe, participate or opine on my methods there. It is based on my own similar situation User talk:Dennis Brown/CSD. Since he and I share this same distinction, I'm hoping my experience will help him over the hump. His attitude about it has been good and I'm confident the mentoring will help. I've also invited DGG, who has indicated he will at least observe as well. Personally, I think this is a good thing as we need good admin, and it is better to promote someone that is highly skilled and deal with a singular weakness via mentoring, crash course style. Putting them off for a year usually means forever, so while unorthodox, this is a better solution. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER21:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I left a note at DYK but they mainly get ignored because they're too difficult to quickly fix or there's a general perception that facts don't matter. But in the queue you've just "promoted", the hook says "that the Toungoo Dynasty's decisive victory over Ava and its allies in the Toungoo–Ava War (1538–45) cemented the upstart kingdom's emergence..." but it's completely unclear what or who is the "upstart kingdom". Hopefully you can fix this or remove the dubious hook before it hits main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm...actually it's pretty clear to me it means this mob, both from the article lead and the intonation of the hook. Writing it another way makes it sound concrete and repetitive. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is you have "Dynasty" and "Ava" and then "the upstart kingdom", which of the Dynasty and Ava is the upstart kingdom? It is picky but I wonder if there's a better way to do it.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The Rambling Man, I'm not quite sure why the editor allowed you to delete my text when adding your own, but I'm reinserting it where it was before your post. Cas Liber, the image still presumably needs protecting; Materialscientist usually deletes the bot error text once the image has been protected, but I don't know whether that's strictly necessary. Thanks. (PS: I thought it was obviously the winners, too.) BlueMoonset (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Slight error in one of the DYK's on the main page: do think you could correct ...that a rough cut of "Deep Breath", the first episode of the eighth series of Doctor Who, was leaked online six weeks before the episode was due to air? to ...that a rough cut of "Deep Breath", the first episode of the eighth series of Doctor Who, was leaked online six weeks before the episode is due to air? Emphasis added to show what needs fixing. The episode is yet to air, so the current wording isn't quite correct. Thanks. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, that is tricky. Yes it is in the future -but the tenses then flow weirdly....and it's not six weeks now. Hmmmm. I only just woke up. Need coffee and to think about this.....Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about ...that a rough cut of "Deep Breath", the first episode of the eighth series of Doctor Who, was leaked online six weeks before the episode's intended release date? instead? Avoids the issue. LeadSongDogcome howl!21:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let me pick your brain a bit, as you are a much more content experienced editor than I. I ran across this while patrolling the back side of the NewPages log. I don't see how the subject as defined is "notable", at least not as sourced. It links up to Cuban immigration to Mexico, which is problematic but my guess is that sources could be found. I'm curious to learn your perspective, as I don't want to just skip it but a bit out of my element with it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER20:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Funny sometimes how little we know about some other cultures...I was just looking at all the other immigrants to Mexico. I suspect as both are populous countries near each other there has been a fair bit of cross-immigration. As I suspect most if not all sources would be in Spanish, I think I'd be trying to work with some Spanish-speaking editors to ferret some out. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pictor you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hamiltonstone -- Hamiltonstone (talk) 05:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't made one on WP yet, so my skill level (I think) would be the same as yours. Interested to learn but will be very busy the next few days at least. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 21:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On 28 July 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article RY Sagittarii, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the star RY Sagittarii is periodically dimmed by clouds of carbon dust most likely ejected by the star itself? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/RY Sagittarii. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
"^FWIW I'd call Eric's comment and exasperated and glib comment" I assume you mean "an" rather than the first "and". I would normally not mention it but as it is a bit high profile right now ...--Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sorry I couldn't be more nitpicky - tried to be as thorough as poss to give it as big a shove to FAC...but is in pretty good shape really. Regarding fairy rings....yeah.....been meaning to revisit that......Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 02:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've just had an expletive of a day and was musing on editing and then some masochistic idea possessed me...it'd be like some self-flagellation or something. Anyhoo........Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's a surprising number of articles it's quite simply impossible to work on, a problem I think is far more serious than the faux misogyny hysteria sweeping across WP. I've lost count of the number of times I've been called a misogynist, which apparently isn't considered to be a personal attack. But I actually like women, I even went so far as to marry one of them. EricCorbett13:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can't say hysteria, you misogynist. (Actually I'm glad you are here as I came to suggest that the nuckalavee DYK hook might be better as "... that in Orcadian folklore, the Sea Mither keeps the demonic nuckelavee (unconnected horse demon pictured) confined to the deeps?" which is a joke that Cas Liber wouldn't necessarily get) Belle (talk) 13:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I'd forgotten about the Freudian origins of the word hysteria; you just can't win here. Your suggested hook seems fine to me. EricCorbett13:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said numerous times elsewhere, the most riled I've been is when someone subtly insinuated I was dishonest when I wasn't...and not a swear word or overt hostile comment in sight.....Regarding articles - I think we somehow need to finetune stable versions and emphasise the point an article gets to FA as a "set/consensus point" somehow. It is there in writing now and I've seen folks enforce it in various articles, which is a Good Thing.....Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a nice quiet, tranquil little corner to camp out ... I think I would emphatically second Eric's comment re: nothing going anywhere near FAC - don't get me wrong, nothing really against the FA process, it's the [*/insert suitable adjective of your choice] that follows. Now, Eric - did you realise that Cas has [kindly?] added our Sea Mither to the DYK nom, so it will need your input soon, please (as these are all a team effort) especially as someone has already approved it? And Cas will also need to add you to the credit ... SagaciousPhil - Chat13:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What with all the excitement of the past few days I haven't had a chance to look at the Sea Mother yet, but I'll certainly have a read through later. EricCorbett13:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My daughter likes drawing weird art - she was suitably impressed by the Screaming Popes of bacon - I did then tell her about the nuckelavee and she was horrified but amused....need some images.....and no she's not a Brony....Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 14:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Telescopium 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 Gilderien -- Gilderien (talk) 01:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Turquoise parrot you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Cas -- I just read the latest exchanges on the Peer Review page. I'd like to make changes to two sentences in that section (the one with Clapton Nursery). Would you mind if I just make the changes in the article? If you don't like them, you can change them. Or, if you change them, would our changes contribute to undesirable instability -- I read that stability was one of the criteria for Featured Article status. Would you prefer I suggest the alternatives on the Peer Review page?CorinneSD (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hope you don't mind, but I have a question with regards to the stub contest. If someone makes a stub they feel qualifies for points, how do they go about keeping a record of this for the judges' perusal? I do apologise, but I've never entered any contests on Wikipedia. LuciferMorgan (talk) 23:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber, there are four preps awaiting promotion, no queues filled, and it's been well over a day since a queue has been promoted to the main page. I have no idea whether you'll be around today, but if so, please take a look and, if needed, promoted at least one prep. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On 12 August 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article BL Boötis, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that BL Boötis (or BL Boo) in Boötes is not a binary but a BL Boötis variable? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/BL Boötis. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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 Casliber, In the present Q3, my name is not listed in credits list for the last hook (self-nomination). Could you kindly fix that. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ12:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
