User talk:Casliber#A question for you

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 ({{cite journal| last=Donk| first=M.A.| title=The generic names proposed for Agaricaceae| journal=Beiheifte zur Nova Hedwigia| pages=1–320| volume=5| year=1962| issn= 0078-2238}}) 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???

LOTS of "per" in citation here. See [http://fp.bio.utk.edu/Mycology/Nomenclature/nom-conv.htm]

;On Agaricus

:Etym.: Possibly "from Agarica of Sarmatica, a district of Russia" (!). Note also Greek ἀγαρικLetter is script and looks like a Russian и.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.

{{Reflist-talk|close=1}}

;On Lepiota

:Etym. Probably greek λεπις, "scale"

: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)

;On Boletus

:Not including (Not in Agaricaceae, sorry).

Phew! Circeus 18:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

:I hope you intend to clean that prose ASAP? It's definitely not article-worthy as is. Circeus 01:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

::I'm working on it. Got distracted this morning...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

:::Scotish pork taboo is a remarkable article! Thanks for that, lol. Alastair Haines (talk) 21:59, 8 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)

:Someone has tagged the Religious restrictions on the consumption of pork for OR, though the talk page seems to indicate it is for a different reason....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:03, 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.Maimonides, Guide for the perplexed, Book III ch.48. Can be viewed online at http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/gfp184.htm

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)

{{Reflist-talk|close=1}}

File:Banksia menziesii cone.jpg

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.)

Hesperian 13:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

: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 [http://www.flickr.com/photos/grytr/245879366/ 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)

File:Banksia menziesii inflorescence top closeup.jpg

File:Banksia menziesii developing inflorescence.jpg

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?

Hesperian 01:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

: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:

1. 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;
2. "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.

Hesperian 05:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

::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" [http://www.archive.org/stream/ageneralsystemb00maougoog#page/n685/mode/1up 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)

File:Banksia menziesii inflorescence with persistent florets.jpg

File:Banksia menziesii with persistent florets.jpg

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 [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B985G-4VMR754-C&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F1982&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1178445022&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=173cc2ad92cc59ca486ffdeefc950c64 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)

:::Berkeley & Broome (1887) is online at http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/13683 — see page 217. There is a picture at Plate 29 figure 18. Hesperian 02:09, 19 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)

:::::Like this. Hesperian 03:37, 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 {{cite journal | author = Sommerville, K.; May, T. | year = 2006 | title = Some taxonomic and ecological observations on Banksiamyces | journal = The Victorian Naturalist | volume = 123 | pages = 366–375}} 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. File:Banksia violacea 14 orig.JPG 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)

You may want to have a look there as well. Appears to have been improved by a Szasz fan. I've read diagonally [http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-myth-of-thomas-szasz 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)

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)

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.

Neophema99 (talk) 07:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

: 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)

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 [http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/sim-id?Ident=*%20CrB&NbIdent=wild&Radius=2&Radius.unit=arcmin&submit=submit%20id 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)

:::{{u|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)

::::::{{u|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)

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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carcinoma_in_situ&oldid=632456372 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cervix&diff=632689320&oldid=632516596 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)

:::{{u|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 function Cas 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)

::{{u|Snowmanradio}} Yes that sounds like a good idea. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:54, 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)

::{{ping|Snowmanradio}} I will take a look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:05, 15 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)

::{{ping|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)

::{{ping|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)

::::{{ping|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 {{u|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)

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)

====Core contest====

1. 99of9 (talk) 03:08, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
2. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
3. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

1. Nessie (talk) 03:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
2. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC) (just as a side-note I wouldn't take any voucher but would chuck it back into the pot)
3. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
4. Guettarda (talk) 12:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
5. Mcampany (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

1. Nessie (talk) 03:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
2. Loopy30 (talk) 11:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
3. Guettarda (talk) 12:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
4. Mcampany (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Look at [https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/34963015 this] Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning pn.svg

{{Quote box|quote=

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on :Roy Rosenfeld, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
• It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the {{Querylink|Special:Log|qs=type=delete&page=Roy+Rosenfeld|deleting administrator}}, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. REDACTED403 (talk) 13:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Letting you know that the edit notice is now live - if you edit any article with refideas listed on the talk page, you will get the notification. :) You can click "edit" on Call of Cthulhu (role-playing game) to see it in action, if you have not already seen it. :) BOZ (talk) 18:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Cas: I'm wondering if I can get you to cast your seasoned eye over lichen growth forms. I'm going to try for FA, and wonder if you – as someone not particularly interested in lichens – find any of it hard to understand or lacking in information. Any comments much appreciated! MeegsC (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

:Happy to/A pleasure. But busy so ping me if you haven't seen me there in 3 days or so. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Cas. Edits and comments on the blurb are welcome. I'm thinking of running this at TFA on January 11; does that work for you? It hasn't changed much since your edits in 2019, and Jim has recently looked at it, so I think we're in good shape. - Dank (push to talk) 18:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

This article is just crying out for your expertise. Enjoy! Drmies (talk) 02:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

:Oh dear...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

::I assume you're on your way to the library: good! Thanks! Drmies (talk) 13:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Cas, I hope that things are going well for you. While I am not keen to add to your list of unsolicited requests, Teloschistaceae is at FAC and could do with both another review and a look through by a knowledgeable editor. If you felt up to providing either of those, it would be much appreciated. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

:Ooo, interesting. I'll take a look Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Over a decade ago, you semiprotected Ivy League. Can you please remove that protection so we can see if it's still necessary? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 03:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

:Alright, let's see how this goes. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

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) 00:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

{{User QAIbox

| image = Ehrenbach, plum tree with frost.jpg

| image_upright = 0.9

| bold = December: story · music · places

}}

Thank you today for Masked booby, "about another sulid". Thank you also for another year of great contributions, and best wishes for 2024! For me, 2023 was a year of stories, and a click on "music" will give you the latest music and memories, promised. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

:Heh thanks - and ditto! To everyone who has posted here in this festive season! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2024 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. 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 ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close on 31 January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: {{User4|Cwmhiraeth}}, {{User4|Epicgenius}}, and {{User4|Frostly}}. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you today for Rock parrot, "about a cute little parrot that has not been much-studied...meaning it is a shorter article than many bird articles"!

I have a DYK, but my story would be different, about Figaro, - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwP1MD8gyaA this Figaro]. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

On the Main page: the person who made the pictured festival possible --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

{{User QAIbox

| image = Hazel, Ehrenbach.jpg

| image_upright = 0.8

| bold = story · music · places

}}

Today a friend's birthday, with related music and new vacation pics --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi,

seeing that you're the only one of the mentors listed at WP:FAM naming astronomy among his interests, I would like to request mentoring from you before an FA nomination of Near-Earth object. For some background: I achieved GA for that article back in 2018, and have recently restored it to that level. I have attempted to bring an article to FA once (in a completely different field: railways), but aborted it for some reason - after lots of work based on helpful reviews, which taught me about some finer points of the English language and citation templates -, and it was 13 years ago, so I barely remember it & standards probably changed a lot since.Rontombontom (talk) 17:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

:Heh, I'll take a look. Cool article BTW. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

::If you have the time, could you please take another look at the article, and tell it it's now ready for FA nomination? Over the past two weeks, I have re-ordered the history, impacts & close approaches sections in a sequence that seems logical, trimmed some sections covered in greater detail in linked articles, and changed access/archive date format after all. Rontombontom (talk) 09:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The 2024 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with 135 participants. This is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2017.

Our current leader is newcomer {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant15|Generalissima}}, who has one FA on John Littlejohn (preacher) and 10 GAs and 12 DYKs mostly on New Zealand coinage and Inuit figures. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:

• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant15|AirshipJungleman29}}, with one FA on Hö'elün, two GAs on Mongolia-related articles, and two DYKs;
• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant15|Vami IV}}, with one FA on Doom (2016 video game), one GA on Boundary Fire (2017), and 11 reviews;
• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant15|MaranoFan}}, with one FA on Holidays (Meghan Trainor song), a nine-article FT on 30 (album), and two DYKs;
• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant15|Skyshifter}}, with one FA on OneShot and one DYK;
• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant15|Sammi Brie}}, with five GAs and five DYKs on television and radio stations;
• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant15|voorts}} and {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant15|Elli}}, both with one FA and one DYK each.

As a reminder, competitors may submit work for the first round until 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February, and the second round starts 1 March. Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round; currently, competitors need at least 15 points to progress. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges ({{User|Cwmhiraeth}}, {{User|Epicgenius}}, and {{User|Frostly}}) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

File:Information.svg Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page :Haborodelphis, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haborodelphis&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit§ion=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1208136494%7CHaborodelphis%5D%5D Ask for help])

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Casliber§ion=new&preloadparams%5b%5d={{FULLPAGENAMEE:Haborodelphis}}&preloadparams%5b%5d=1208136494 report it to my operator].

Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I obviously owe you one. Thanks! 86.177.202.213 (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

The first round of the 2024 WikiCup ended at 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February. Everyone with at least 30 points moved on to Round 2, the highest number of points required to advance to the second round since 2014. Due to a six-way tie for the 64th-place spot, 67 contestants have qualified for Round 2.

The following scorers in Round 1 all scored more than 300 points:

• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant15|Generalissima}}, who has 916 points mostly from one FA on John Littlejohn (preacher), 15 GAs, and 16 DYKs on a variety of topics including New Zealand coinage and Inuit figures, in addition to seven reviews
• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant15|Vami IV}}, who has 790 points from two FAs on Felix M. Warburg House and Doom (2016 video game), two GAs, one DYK, and 11 reviews
• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant15|AirshipJungleman29}}, who has 580 points from one FA on Hö'elün, two GAs on Mongolia-related articles, two DYKs, and five reviews
• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant15|Sammi Brie}}, who has 420 points mostly from nine GAs and seven DYKs on television and radio stations
• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant15|MaranoFan}}, who has 351 points from one FA on Holidays (Meghan Trainor song), a nine-article FT on 30 (album), and three DYKs
• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant15|Skyshifter}}, who has 345 points from one FA on OneShot, one DYK and two reviews

In this newsletter, the judges would like to pay a special tribute to {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant15|Vami IV}}, who unfortunately passed away this February. At the time of his death, he was the second-highest-scoring competitor. Outside the WikiCup, he had eight other featured articles, five A-class articles, eight other good articles, and two Four Awards. Vami also wrote an essay on completionism, a philosophy in which he deeply believed. If you can, please join us in honoring his memory by improving one of the articles on his to-do list.

Remember that any content promoted after 27 February 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 at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated by {{noping|HouseBlaster}}, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by {{noping|Barkeep49}} and {{noping|Usedtobecool}}, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated by {{noping|SilkTork}}, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by {{noping|BilledMammal}}, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by {{noping|Lee Vilenski}}, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by {{noping|Reaper Eternal}}, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by {{noping|City of Silver}}, {{u|Ritchie333}}, and {{u|HouseBlaster}}, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by {{noping|Novem Lingaue}}, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by {{noping|Kusma}}, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by {{noping|Thebiguglyalien}} and {{noping|Soni}}, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by {{noping|BilledMammal}}, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by {{noping|SchroCat}}, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by {{noping|theleekycauldron}}, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by {{noping|SportingFlyer}}, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by {{noping|Femke}}, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by {{noping|WereSpielChequers}}, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by {{noping|HouseBlaster}}, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello! Just a reminder that, if you have time, you are welcome to join the GA backlog drive; it runs until the end of March. You are receiving this message because you signed up on the drive page but have not yet listed any reviews. We hope to see you there! Either way, happy editing! —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Cas, any interest in judging again for TCC this year? Myself and Femke are already interested. If you're too busy, I'm happy to find someone else. Best – Aza24 (talk) 05:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

:Happy to do so. Will head over to look at discussion. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I just made a few small edits; feel free to revert or discuss. - Dank (push to talk) 16:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

:They're good/improvements. thx. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

The Core Contest—Wikipedia's most exciting contest—returns again this year from April 15 to May 31. The goal: to improve vital or other core articles, with a focus on those in the worst state of disrepair. Editing can be done individually, but in the past groups have also successfully competed. There is {{GBP|300}} of prize money divided among editors who provide the "best additive encyclopedic value". Signups are open now. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. – Aza24 (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

{{ombox

| name = Happy Adminship

| image = 50px

| imageright = 50px

| style = border: 2px solid SlateBlue; background: linear-gradient(300deg, AliceBlue, LavenderBlush 30%, LavenderBlush 70%, AliceBlue);

| textstyle = padding: 0.75em; text-align:center;

| plainlinks = yes

| text = Happy adminship anniversary!
Hi Casliber! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of your [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=rights&page=User%3ACasliber successful request for adminship]. Enjoy this special day! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

}}

In 2015, you had protected the page to temporarily restrict edits to autoconfirmed editors and at the same time, indefinitely restrict moves to sysops only. Is it OK with you to have the move protection to be dropped? – robertsky (talk) 03:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

:Sure. Done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

{{User QAIbox

| image = Himmelsschlüssel, Engweder Kopf.jpg

| image_upright = 0.8

| bold = story · music · places

}}

Thank you today for the beautiful Telopea speciosissima, introduced (in 2010): "What's not to like? The state emblem and a darn fine flower at that....and it's been attracting birds and looking nice and red for over 60 million years....."! - I saw flowers on Madeira, and if you see me just naming one "red flower" and know better, please correct ;) -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

plum tree blossom for Kalevi Kiviniemi in the snow - see my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

We are approaching the end of the 2024 WikiCup's second round, with a little over two weeks remaining. Currently, contestants must score at least 105 points to progress to the third round.

Our current top scorers are as follows:

• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant15|Sammi Brie}} with 642 points, mostly from 11 GAs about radio and television;
• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant15|voorts}} with 530 points, mostly from two FAs (Well he would, wouldn't he? and Cora Agnes Benneson) and three GAs;
• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant15|Generalissima}} with 523 points, mostly from 11 GAs about coinage and history;
• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant15|SounderBruce}} with 497 points, mostly from a FA about the 2020 season of the soccer club Seattle Sounders FC and two GAs;
• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant15|Tamzin}} with 410 points, mostly from a FA about the drink Capri-Sun and three GAs;
• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant15|Kusma}} with 330 points, mostly from a FA about the English botanist Anna Blackburne and a GA.

Competitors may submit work for the second round until the end of 28 April, and the third round starts 1 May. Remember that only competitors with the top 32 scores will make it through to the third round. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs. As a reminder, competitors are strictly prohibited from gaming Wikipedia policies or processes to receive more points.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please read Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges ({{User|Cwmhiraeth}}, {{User|Epicgenius}}, and {{User|Frostly}}) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

The second round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 April. This round was particularly competitive: each of the 32 contestants who advanced to Round 3 scored at least 141 points. This is the highest number of points required to advance to Round 3 since 2014.

The following scorers in Round 2 all scored more than 500 points:

• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant15|Sammi Brie}} with 707 points, mostly from 45 good article nomination reviews and 12 good articless about radio and television;
• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant15|Generalissima}} with 600 points, mostly from 12 good articles and 12 did you know nominations about coinage and history;
• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant15|SounderBruce}} with 552 points, mostly from a featured article about the 2020 Seattle Sounders FC season, three featured lists, and two good articles;
• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant15|BennyOnTheLoose}} with 548 points, mostly from a featured article about the snooker player John Pulman, two featured lists, and one good article;
• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant15|voorts}} with 530 points, mostly from two featured articles (Well he would, wouldn't he? and Cora Agnes Benneson) and three good articles.

The full scores for Round 2 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 18 featured articles, 22 featured lists, and 186 good articles, 76 in the news credits and at least 200 did you know credits. They have conducted 165 featured article reviews, as well as 399 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 21 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed during Round 3, which starts on 1 May at 00:00 (UTC). 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 at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges ({{User|Cwmhiraeth}}, {{User|Epicgenius}}, and {{User|Frostly}}) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello there! I noticed that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Major_depressive_disorder&oldid=1217203404 you removed] the Digital media addictions subsection from the Major depressive disorder article that was excerpted the Digital media use and mental health article Depression subsection. Considering that you are a psychiatrist and helped get the Major depressive disorder article up to featured article status (per your user page), I was wondering if you'd be willing to trim that section on the Digital media use and mental health article in accordance with WP:MEDSAY. I've been trying to improve the Digital media use and mental health article (hopefully to featured status if possible), initially by just tracking down systematic reviews and meta-analyses that find associations between the various problematic digital media use categories and recognized mental health disorders by the DSM and ICD and other human factors issues associated with problematic digital media use. Unfortunately, I am not a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist so all I can do is look things up using Google Scholar and often do not have access to entire articles. Another editor has raised issues with the article's layout at its talk page, if you have the time to comment on it. Thanks! -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

:Okay, difficult topic and I have little time for the stuff I want to prioritise on as is. First thing, some context is good but too much is unnecessary - e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_media_use_and_mental_health&diff=1221464951&oldid=1220874509 this] paragraph is just too distant from the topic at hand. Am even unconvinced about whether the remaining paragraph is needed (leaning to not but need to read and think some more) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

• Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
• Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
• Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
• Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
• Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
• Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
• Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
• Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

{{stupid t-shirt|I MADE TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND EDITS AND EVEN THOUGH I'M NOT AROUND MUCH ANYMORE I STILL GOT THIS STUPID T-SHIRT!!!}} jp×g🗯️ 02:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

:(Hyuk hyuk hyuk) fair point. I keep trying to reignite the fire...but hard competing as I've returned to being a DnD DM...competing priorities...sigh Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The third round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 June. As with Round 2, this round was competitive: each of the 16 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 256 points.

The following editors all scored more than 400 points in Round 3:

• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant15|Generalissima}} with 1,059 points, mostly from 1 featured article on DeLancey W. Gill, 11 good articles, 18 did you know nominations, and dozens of reviews;
• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant15|Skyshifter}} with 673 points, mostly from 2 featured articles on Worlds (Porter Robinson album) and I'm God, 5 good articles, and 2 did you know nominations;
• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant15|Sammi Brie}} with 557 points, mostly from 1 featured article on KNXV-TV, 5 good articles, and 8 did you know nominations; and
• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant15|AryKun}} with 415 points, mostly from 1 featured article on Great cuckoo-dove, with a high number of bonus points from that article.

The full scores for round 3 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 28 featured articles, 38 featured lists, 240 good articles, 92 in the news credits, and at least 285 did you know credits. They have conducted 279 featured article reviews, as well as 492 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 22 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 June but before the start of Round 4 can be claimed during Round 4, which starts on 1 July at 00:00 (UTC). 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 for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges ({{User|Cwmhiraeth}}, {{User|Epicgenius}}, and {{User|Frostly}}) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you think the article is Satisfactory? I could expand a little more, but I'd also like for your to participate since you were the original nominator. LittleJerry (talk) 22:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

:I'll take a look. It's been a long time so will undoubtedly need something Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

::Here are some more articles you could use [https://journalmcd.com/index.php/mcd/article/view/mcd.v13i1.13] [https://anatomypubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ar.20407] [https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/96102356/bf0039715520221220-1-m9ime6-libre.pdf?1671548416=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DObservations_on_underwater_locomotion_an.pdf&Expires=1723478813&Signature=dhGOzXcMUBhRMnUWRv2SsAx9U2i5mGY1ECEuQR7D9aeLFiQwtb1usU~W8EnhMcgR2FKsiyiX2nqOjtrTNgQSCfT0vpAusLL48P9qYnUAoYAPRnOc-9Dvk-k5P0WLJGOheT9kFGfXJ~W2jd6i7BDSf5UD4LSZsxKSufQyPBrFAjnypySZwl7fndbJHvpL7dfFPsjg-4oNuG8SAXiKkoaGg8fbTftHiZWbRIhXGDrI~t6tgoUcgj-E7d1MXJea~LyVtk0P6zO75HeXV8sUGUSw8hZyuEmiapmzBu84DqjF7MZF620fjEL4Q1rtK9ocxc6jL5b1PHbKu70qONV~O4mQXw__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA] [https://anatomypubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ar.23990] [https://pubs.aip.org/asa/jasa/article/144/2/525/946481] and [https://anatomypubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ar.24856] LittleJerry (talk) 15:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

::How are things going? Do you still plan on working on this. I would do it by myself but am a bit hesitant since I didn't nominate it and I may have already made it into the Ship of Theseus. LittleJerry (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

|}

You protected this article 5 years ago. I thought it could be unprotected as vandals would have long gone? LibStar (talk) 09:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

:Let's give unprotection a whirl. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

::Thanks LibStar (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

British people has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The fourth round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 29 August. Each of the 8 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 472 points, and the following contestants scored more than 700 points:

• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant15|Generalissima}} with 1,150 points, mostly from 3 featured articles, 2 featured lists, 7 good articles, and 13 did you know nominations;
• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant15|Arconning}} with 791 points, mostly from 2 featured lists, 8 good articles, 4 did you know nominations, and plenty of reviews;
• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant15|AirshipJungleman29}} with 718 points, mostly from a high-multiplier featured article on Genghis Khan and 2 good articles; and
• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant15|BennyOnTheLoose}} with 714 points, mostly from 1 featured article on Susanna Hoffs, 2 featured lists, and 3 good articles.

Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated. Contestants put in extraordinary amounts of effort during this round, and their scores can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 36 featured articles, 55 featured lists, 15 good articles, 93 in the news credits, and at least 333 did you know credits. They have conducted 357 featured content reviews, as well as 553 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 30 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Any content promoted after 29 August but before the start of Round 5 can be claimed during Round 5, which starts on 1 September at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. If two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Remember to claim your points within 14 days of earning them, and importantly, before the deadline on 31 October.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges ({{User|Cwmhiraeth}}, {{User|Epicgenius}}, and {{User|Frostly}}) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• {{pagelinks|Shuhada' Davitt}}

Hi. An article you protected over a decade ago seemed to have its protection settings removed recently. Do you mind removing protection settings from its redirect as well?197.2.203.207 (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

:Sure, why not. Done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:20, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Dear administrator. Can you please take a look into the edit history of these Karnataka dynasty pages

1) Chalukya_dynasty

2) Western_Chalukya_Empire

3) Kadamba_dynasty

4) Pallava_dynasty

5) Hoysala_Kingdom

6) Kalachuris_of_Kalyani

They have been continously getting vandalised by a Maratha caste IP looking to promote his caste. Please take a look at his edit history https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2409:408C:ADB5:3805:E56B:A989:87F5:F563

I think similar edits were made by the same person in the Rashtrakutas dynasty page (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rashtrakutas&action=history) which made you protect the page for a period of 3 months about 4 days back. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rashtrakutas&diff=prev&oldid=1247580284)

Kindly do the same for the other dynasty pages he is targetting as well. He is using old British period sources which according to WP:RAJ is unreliable (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_172#Are_British_Raj_ethnographers_unreliable.3F.)

The same account seems to be adding those dynasties to promote his caste here as well List_of_Maratha dynasties_and_states. Please look into it (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Maratha_dynasties_and_states&action=history).

Thank you. Mpatrol (talk) 10:25, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Casliber, it looks like things are busy where you are, but in case you have any time, might you be able to promote any DYK preps to queues? The queues are all empty, and six preps are full; it would help if we could get some movement here. Many thanks even if now's a bad time; you've done so many promotions over the years. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

:Taking a look Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

::Thank you so much! BlueMoonset (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

:::Not a problem. Been busy (and busy still). Will try to keep an eye on it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Casliber, I am wondering if you would have some time (not urgently) to be a mentor/provide some specific advice regarding the Geologic Time Scale article I've helped significantly revise over the past couple of years. It is currently rated as B-class, but I believe it to be much improved since that assessment. I have requested an independent assessment of it on Wikiproject Geology as I think it may be of A-class now. Additionally I am considering either a GAN or FAC listing, but would appreciate advice from a more experienced editor. Thanks for your time. Jarred C Lloyd (talk) 02:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

:Taking a look Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

{{User QAIbox

| image = Dahlias, Elisengarten, Aachen.jpg

| image_upright = 0.8

| bold = story · music · places

}}

You may remember Maryvonne Le Dizès, thank you for promoting her to the queue, - my story today as on 28 August. Some September music was unusual: last compositions and eternal light, with Ligeti mentioned in story and music. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I made Leif Segerstam my big story today. -Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Happy whatever you celebrate today, - more who died, more to come, and they made the world richer. Greetings from Madrid where I took the pic of assorted Cucurbita in 2016. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello Cas Liber, it seems my DYK credit for Juno (song) has not been processed despite it being part of a double hook with Bed Chem? I had added it to my nomination within seven days of it being created and bolded it.--NØ 00:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Casliber, I am a new editor and recently got Tumor Necrosis Factor promoted to GA status. I'd like to go for Featured Article status, and am wondering if you could be a mentor and provide some advice. Would greatly appreciate any help! AdeptLearner123 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

:Ah ok. Bit busy but will do so in a few days Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this [https://wikimediafoundation.limesurvey.net/294789?lang=en anonymous survey].

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Adriatic Sea has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 22:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

The 2024 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round being a very tight race. Our new champion is {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant15|AirshipJungleman29}}, who scored 2,283 points mainly through 3 high-multiplier FAs and 3 GAs on military history topics. By a 1% margin, Airship beat out last year's champion, {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant15|BeanieFan11}}, who scored second with 2,264 points, mainly from an impressive 58 GAs about athletes. In third place, {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant15|Generalissima}} scored 1,528 points, primarily from two FAs on U.S. Librarians of Congress and 20 GAs about various historical topics. Our other finalists are: {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant15|Sammi Brie}} with 879 points, {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant15|Hey man im josh}} with 533 points, {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant15|BennyOnTheLoose}} with 432 points, {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant15|Arconning}} with 244 points, and {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant15|AryKun}} with 15 points. Congratulations to our finalists and all who participated!

The final round was very productive, and contestants had 7 FAs, 9 FLs, 94 GAs, 73 FAC reviews, and 79 GAN reviews and peer reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!

All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.

• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant15|Generalissima}} wins the featured article prize for 3 FAs in round 4, and 7 FAs overall.
• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant15|Hey man im josh}} wins the featured list prize for 23 FLs overall.
• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant15|MaranoFan}} wins the featured topic prize for 9 articles in featured topics in round 1.
• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant15|Hey man im josh}} wins the featured content reviewer prize for 110 FA/FL reviews overall.
• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant15|BeanieFan11}} wins the good article prize for 58 GAs in round 5, and 70 GAs overall.
• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant15|Fritzmann}} wins the good topic prize for 6 articles in good topics in round 2.
• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant15|Sammi Brie}} wins the good article reviewer prize for 45 GA reviews in round 2, and 78 GA reviews overall.
• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant15|BeanieFan11}} wins the DYK prize, for 131 Did you know articles overall.
• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant15|Muboshgu}} wins the ITN prize, for 15 In the news articles in round 1, and 36 overall.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2025 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement!

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. {{User|Cwmhiraeth}}, {{User|Epicgenius}}, and {{User|Frostly}}. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

American robin has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey [https://wikimediafoundation.limesurvey.net/294789?lang=en here].

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning blue.svg:Template:Editnotices/Page/Alzheimer's disease has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning blue.svg:Template:Editnotices/Page/Autism has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I'm contacting you because I noticed your username is listed at WP:FAM and I am interested in nominating a FAC but have never done so in the past. I'm contacting several people listed as FA mentors so if you are busy that is okay. The article is Neurocysticercosis, a parasitic brain disease. I have started a peer review for the article which can be found at Wikipedia:Peer review/Neurocysticercosis/archive1. Thanks in advance for your time and consideration! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 21:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

:I'll take a look when I can. Been busy IRL and wikipedia has been pushed aside for higher priorities alot of the time but I'll see what I can do. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

::Thanks so much I really appreciate it! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 01:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

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) 18:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Vampire folklore by region has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 23:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

{{User QAIbox

| image = Ehrenbach, snow on grass melting.jpg

| image_upright = 0.8

| bold = story · music · places

}}

My third Christmas story is different ;) - enjoy the season! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

{{-}}

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2025 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor, we hope the WikiCup will give you a chance to improve your editing skills as you go. 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 ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page.

For the 2025 WikiCup, we've implemented several changes to the scoring system. The highest-ranking contestants will now receive tournament points at the end of each round, and final rankings are decided by the number of tournament points each contestant has. If you're busy and can't sign up in January, don't worry: Signups are now open throughout the year. To make things fairer for latecomers, the lowest-scoring contestants will no longer be eliminated at the end of each round.

The first round will end on 26 February. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: {{User4|Cwmhiraeth}}, {{User4|Epicgenius}}, {{User4|Frostly}}, {{User4|Guerillero}} and {{User4|Lee Vilenski}}. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Could you please provide me a copy of the deleted article Vaughn J Featherstone or Vaughn J. Featherstone? Many additional sources are available and I'd like to see whether I might be able to flesh it out. Thanks much. Davemc0 (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

:Okay I have userfied it and placed it at User talk:Davemc0/Vaughn J. Featherstone. Just keep an eye on notability requirements before moving it to article space. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

::I think it should have been moved to Draft:Vaughn J. Featherstone. If there was a problem with that, it should have been moved to User:Davemc0/Vaughn J. Featherstone. It is not a talk page. Anomalocaris (talk) 21:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for providing it. Yes, I'll see whether I can solve the notability problem. Davemc0 (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Geography of Croatia has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

{{User QAIbox

| image = Ehrenbach icicles.jpg

| image_upright = 0.9

| bold = story · music · places

}}

Happy new year 2025! Today, pictured on the Main page, Tosca, in memory of her first appearance on stage OTD in 1900, and of principal author Brian Boulton. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Today I have a composer (trumpeter, conductor) on the main page who worked closely with another who became GA yesterday, - small world! To celebrate: mostly flowers pics from vacation ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Today is Schubert's birthday. I added a pic to his article (and my story) and raised a question on the talk, regarding the lead image. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Can you remove the protection in Nyan Cat already? Its been protected since 2014 =). 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:51, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:Done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:56, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello there - I am prepping a FAC run for Mario Andretti, the American race car driver. As a first-time FAC nominator, I understand that I'm strongly encouraged to find a mentor for the FA process. I saw on the FA website that you advise on sports, so I was hoping you could give me some tips on how to improve the article. I'd appreciate any guidance you can give. I've opened a peer review page at Wikipedia:Peer review/Mario Andretti/archive1.

I should note that a separate editor has standardized the ledes for most Formula One drivers (including Andretti) and polices them thereafter, so while I'm happy to implement your comments on the lede, it may take a little more interpersonal smoothing first to make sure everyone's on the same page.

If you have someone else in mind for this, feel free to send them my way too! Either way, thank you for your consideration. Namelessposter (talk) 21:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Greetings Casliber. I've been working on the Metrosideros bartlettii article for almost 3 months now... intend to bring this article to FAC soon, I'm nervous but also excited to seeing where this article would go in the future. Would this article be of interest to you to mentor it? By the way, it's all good if you would prefer not to mentor it or you would prefer to focus on other articles at present. :-) Alexeyevitch^(talk) 01:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

:My spare time for wikipedia is pretty limited but will take a look and offer some thoughts. If I am not around when it is at FAC ping me. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:48, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

::Okay. No worries. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 06:54, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Fear of emmemmanuel 102.89.23.25 (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

::Hello. It's at FAC now. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 21:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Sorry - been busy. Bandwidth at limit. Will take a look at FAC. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:42, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

The first round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 26 February. As a reminder, we are no longer disqualifying the lowest-scoring contestants; everyone who competed in round 1 will advance to round 2 unless they have withdrawn or been banned from Wikipedia. Instead, the contestants with the highest round-point totals now receive tournament points at the end of each round. Unlike the round points in the main WikiCup table, which are reset at the end of each round, tournament points are carried over between rounds and can only be earned if a competitor is among the top 16 round-point scorers. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far.

Round 1 was very competitive compared with previous years; two contestants scored more than 1,000 round points, and the top 16 contestants all scored more than 500 round points. The following competitors scored more than 800 round points:

• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant16|Gog the Mild}} with 1,168 round points, mainly from 4 featured articles and 4 good articles on old military history, in addition to an assortment of GA and FA reviews.
• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant16|Generalissima}} with 1,095 round points, mainly from 2 FAs, 2 featured lists, 8 GAs, and 16 Did You Know articles mainly on historical topics.
• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant16|BeanieFan11}}, with 866 round points from 20 GAs, 23 DYKs, and 2 In the News articles primarily about athletes.
• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant16|Sammi Brie}}, with 846 round points from 16 GAs about radio and TV stations, 45 GA reviews, and 3 DYKs.
• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant16|Hey man im josh}}, with 816 round points from 5 FLs about sports and Olympic topics, 46 FL reviews, 3 ITN articles, and a large number of bonus points.
• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant16|MaranoFan}}, with 815 round points primarily from 3 FAs and 1 GA about music, in addition to 9 article reviews.

The full scores for round 1 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 18 featured articles, 26 featured lists, 1 featured-topic article, 197 good articles, 38 good-topic articles and more than 100 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 23 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 550 reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after 26 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2, which begins on 1 March. 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 at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

The Way You Make Me Feel has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi, hope you're well! I'm running a European Destubathon contest in April. I was wondering if you could publicize it centrally like you did before? Can't remember how long before the contest started you did it, but there's 20 odd days until it starts! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:Umm. Trying to remember what we did before. So long ago...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:55, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

::It's been a while! I think it was 2 weeks, at the top of pages in the Wikispace so it would appear a lot. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:26, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Can you remember how to do it? What about this a Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 217 at the top?

♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:43, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I put something on Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous), Wikipedia:Centralized discussion, and at teahouse and in signpost. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:57, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I'd also consider relevant wikiprojects Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:58, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks. I alerted the European WikiProjects yesterday. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::::I'm pretty sure when you click on your watchlist it was advertised at the top like that. The signing up in the last few days has been very poor, doesn't look like anybody is seeing it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:41, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Click on your watchlist now. See where "Interested in having a chat with fellow Wikipedians? There are upcoming meetups in: Edinburgh, 29 March; and Brixton, 31 March.!" is. Any chance of mentioning the April contest underneath Casliber? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:40, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

::::You should have told me that your Core Contest was starting on April 15, I would have arranged the contest so it didn't overlap at all with yours. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:11, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of a group of Wikipedians to better understand their experiences! We are also looking to interview some survey respondents in more detail, and you will be eligible to receive a thank-you gift for the completion of an interview. The outcomes of this research will shape future work designed to improve on-wiki experiences.

We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this [https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_bwKum9LHQGL5bWS survey], which shouldn’t take more than 2-3 minutes. You may view its privacy statement here. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Kind regards, Sam Walton (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

A chara,

I am writing on behalf of Wikimedia Community Ireland to invite you to participate in the Feminism and Folklore Writing Contest that open until the end of March.

This year the contest is bilingual and includes;

• the English version on Wikipedia: Feminism and Folklore Ireland 2025
• the Irish version on Vicipéid: Feimineachas agus Béaloideas 2025

If writing in English you can create or edit articles about Irish folk traditions.

For the Irish version of the writing competition we encourage editors to write in Irish on themes of feminism and folklore, whether in Ireland or elsewhere in the world.

Editors can create new articles, improve existing articles, or translate articles from other languages ​​into Irish.

You can also visit our website for more information [https://wikimedia.ie/2025/02/01/feminism-and-folklore-an-feimineachas-agus-an-bealoideas-2025-wikipedia-writing-contest/ here].

Go n-éirí leat!

Le dea-ghuí,

Sophie Fitzpatrick

Project and Communications Manager, Wikimedia Community Ireland Cailínréalta (talk) 12:47, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

{{User QAIbox

| image = Coltsfoot, Tegernsee.jpg

| image_upright = 0.8

| bold = story · music · places

}}

Today, 300 years of Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1! - We sang works for (mostly) double choir by Pachelbel, Johann Christoph Bach, Kuhnau/Bach, Gounod and Rheinberger! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I was told you may be able to help with finding a way to update Major depressive disorder. WAID provided some nice sources on the talk page and I've been slowly working my way through those to replace sources. So far I've gotten through the causes and treatment sections. However I'm kind of in a rut with the rest of the article. I was thinking of moving on to the diagnosis section. Anyways, if you have the time to help I would appreciate anything you may be able to provide. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:36, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:I'll try Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:33, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

{{ombox

| name = Happy Adminship

| image = 50px

| imageright = 50px

| style = border: 2px solid SlateBlue; background: linear-gradient(60deg, MistyRose, AntiqueWhite, Ivory, Honeydew, Azure, GhostWhite);

| textstyle = padding: 0.75em; text-align:center;

| plainlinks = yes

| text = Happy adminship anniversary!
Hi Casliber! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of your successful request for adminship. Enjoy this special day! Randompersonediting (✍️•📚) 09:58, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

}}

Hail. I wanted to nominate March 2025 Venezuelan deportations for DYK, but I've been dealing with health issues (which would have been manageable if I wasn't also horrible at time management) and expanding the article has taken more than seven days. I'm not very familiar with DYK, having only nominated one article (which failed hilariously, I'd misread the instructions), and wanted to ask if it makes sense to nominate and ask for the seven-day limit to be stretched by a day or two, or if it's too late. If there's time, I'd also like to ask if the article is in any shape to nominate, what changes should be made to it, and if "...the March 2025 Venezuelan deportations were only the fourth time the Alien Enemies Act was invoked in U.S. history, and the first use of the wartime authority in peacetime?" would be a passable hook.

By my count, the article has been expanded fivefold [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=March_2025_Venezuelan_deportations&oldid=1281678681 since here]. I'll also bother BorgQueen about this.--Kizor 20:00, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Steve Irwin has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 21 May 2025. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 2025, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/May 2025. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be left there by user:JennyOz, who assists the coordinators by reviewing the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! Gog the Mild (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

The Core Contest has now begun! Evaluate your article's current state, gather sources, and have at it! You have until May 31 (23:59 UTC) to make eligible changes; although you are most welcome (and encouraged) to continue work on the article, changes after May 31 will not be considered for rankings and their prizes. Good luck and happy editing! Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. – Aza24 (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.