User talk:Casliber/Archive 43

nominate

) 00:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Bacon peer review

Hi there Cas, I saw you're listed under the 'Everyday life' section of peer review volunteers. Would you mind taking a look at Bacon's peer review? Thanks bud :) -Newyorkadam (talk) 06:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]

This week's

article for improvement

(week 9, 2014)

An example of the human skeleton Hello, Casliber. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement 's weekly selection: Human skeleton Previous selections: Reconnaissance satellite • Impossible object Get involved with the TAFI project! You can... Nominate an article Review nominations Have your say in future selections Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC) • Opt-out instructions[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Machine elf

Might be of some interest to you. Someone not using his real name (talk) 07:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Ursa Major

How on earth did you find that page? I hadn't linked it anywhere because I decided I had to do a replacement first =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at your contribs as you were editing constellation articles - let me know if you restore/upload any really nice images from celestial atlases. Am working on Canis Major presently and would like to get that to the main page....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Fair enough. The image is going up, by the way. If you look at User:Adam Cuerden you'll see my current work - I think Auriga and Andromeda - probably Aquarius as well, but I haven't done that one - are the best of the series from this book. Would like to do more, but, sadly, old astronomical books are the sort of thing every single successful astronomer seeks out, and thus rare and expensive. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Astronomy/Constellations_Task_Force#Audited_content for a list of constellations (now up to 14 FAs) that a few of us have buffed up. all nice images on them most welcome.......I have Musca at FAC if you find any cute celestial flies....but be careful as there was Musca Borealis and Musca Australis for a while.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Most of what I have was done for Americans or British, and thus does very much focus on the northern constellations. I can get you Musca Borealis no problem, But that's not the one that survived, so...

I wonder if any Australians made star maps? Must be some... I might know someone... Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's as Apis, but this is apparently the first star map to include the modern southern constellations: http://aa.usno.navy.mil/library/rare/BayerUran1661PiscisBot.jpg (Other half is here: http://aa.usno.navy.mil/library/rare/BayerUran1661PiscisTop.jpg ) - I'd suggest cropping that to include Chameleon, given that's the main reason Musca exists. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, beating eaten by Chamaeleon...would that be an easy one to whiten (?) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Know what you mean, and sure. I'm pretty sure it's not really pink. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Omicron1 Canis Majoris

DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2014/Submissions/Casliber

Hi Cas- I'm afraid I've had to remove your FA. We've been coming down pretty hard this year on people who have nominated articles mostly written last year; we're really looking for work, then nomination, then promotion all this year. While you've certainly done some work this year, I fear that, to be fair, it can't be eligible for WikiCup points. Sorry! J Milburn (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair call - no worries. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Australian birds

Thanks to an industrious Flickr photographer, the Wiki has its first images of the

Banded Whiteface. Is there anything about it these species that would make interesting DYKs? Snowman (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Hmmm, will look into it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Whiteface is difficult as I can't immediately see anything interesting. I will be looking for interesting facts for

Australasian Darter Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Should we have an article on this constellation? It's basically the branch Ramus Pomifer and Cerberus (constellation) combined into a new constellation where Hercules holds more than one thing. Not that either of the starter articles are that well written - surely the branch is the Golden Apples of the Hesperides?

Obsolete constellatiions are always a judgement call, of course. Take Mons Mænalus or Caput Medusæ: Asterisms in Boötes and Perseus, or distinct constellations? We go different ways for each. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we can revisit the notability and find how many sources discuss them significantly....might have a nose around and see if anything can be written about them/it....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny, I was editing Cygnus (constellation) and was trying to write a bit on the Northern Cross (asterism) and it is interesting how little is written on some of them, even prominent ones. I was wondering about the Pointers (Alpha & Beta Centauri) - only two measley stars but there is quite a bit of aboriginal folklore about them...all interesting. I like some of these little weird ex-constellations and asterisms...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess a lot of it's perfectly accessible, but you need to go back a ways. Modern astronomical texts have abandoned even things like having the lines used to connect the figures resemble their mythological forms most of the time, so I'm not terribly surprised they ignore forms seen in the past. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry for the delay. I finally took a look at Tucana, only to see it had already been promoted. One query: what is a casque? Can you provide a wikilink or something? I have added links for super-Earth and super-Jupiter. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The casque is the crest-like thing on top of the bill - see File:Anthracoceros marchei -Palawan-8.jpg for a good example. Will see what I can link to. Anyway, I now have Musca at FAC.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really?? I was assuming it appeared with a small wine barrel! Definitely see what you can link to! BTW, at Grus (constellation), can you check the MOS for whether a comma should appear in 64000 if there's a comma in 100,000? Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have linked to to the wiktionary definition for the time being until we do a bird anatomy article....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

got it...question is, if the 64,000 and 100,000 have commas...does the 3000 need one to to not look...funny. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At my old work the convention was to use spaces not commas, and we only used spaces for five digits or more, so it may be sensible to have the comma likewise. But i thought maybe the MOS would provide a preferred style? hamiltonstone (talk) 23:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I went with Musca over Grus (constellation) to run at FAC next as I felt the latter didn't come together quite as nicely as the former..so am glad you've looked at that one - all input there appreciated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady (talk) 06:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Casliber. Could you please kee your eyes peeled on this article? One certain IP. has done some nonsense which I had to undo. He might be come back... Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ok Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thx. --Nephiliskos (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I found an image for one relatively-Southerly constellation. Not a particularly amazing one. Still need to crop Chameleon/Musca, though that's never going to be an FP on its own. Maybe the whole image, given it's the FIRST, but... Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I started expanding Piscis Austrinus a time ago but writing about Fomalhaut is tricky as there is some question about it so put it on the eternal to-do list.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The other thing that might be fun to look for is some historical botanical images...for instance I will buff Magnolia grandiflora one day to GA/FA...and there must be some nice historical artistic depictions of that one somewhere......Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble with historical botanical images is that people seem so strongly to prefer a bad photograph to a good scientific drawing. They'll nitpick the drawing to death, or sometimes just delete it from an article without a reason. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, not if I have it in a good History section - and that plant has some decent history....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should be able to access http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2004667937/ - would that be any use? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks interesting, if a bit unusual. Yeah, I think it will make a good counterfoil to lots of flower and tree shots. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber, can you please expand on your review? This was far too terse; please specify what you checked. It's important for those who are considering what to promote, and need to know what was checked. Thanks. (It won't qualify as a QPQ as it is, but you may not care about that.) BlueMoonset (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And so ends the most competitive first round we have ever seen, with 38 points required to qualify for round 2. Last year, 19 points secured a place; before that, 11 (2012) or 8 (2011) were enough. This is both a blessing and a curse. While it shows the vigourous good health of the competition, it also means that we have already lost many worthy competitors. Our top three scorers were:

1. Treasury Note (1890–91)
   .
2. Adam Cuerden (submissions), a WikiCup veteran and a finalist last year, Adam is also a featured picture specialist, focusing on the restoration of historical images. This month's promotions have included a carefully restored set of artist William Russell Flint's work.
3. WikiRedactor (submissions), another WikiCup newcomer. WikiRedactor has claimed points for good article reviews and good articles relating to pop music, many of which were awarded bonus points. Articles include Sky Ferreira, Hannah Montana 2: Meet Miley Cyrus and "Wrecking Ball" (Miley Cyrus song).

Other competitors of note include:

• Hahc21 (submissions), who helped take Thirty Flights of Loving
  through good article candidates and featured article candidates, claiming the first first featured article of the competition.
• Natalia Kills discography
  .
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions), who takes the title of the contributor awarded the highest bonus point multiplier (resulting in the highest scoring article) of the competition so far. Her high-importance salamander, now a good article, scored 108 points.

After such a competitive first round, expect the second round to also be fiercely fought. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2, but please do not update your submission page until March (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 equally.

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

The

Tyop Contest is over! Great job, everyone! Of the fourteen entrants, twelve fixed typos! The judges are very behind with the judging, but it will get done! Another note similar to this one will be sent out when the judging is complete to announce the winners. Check back again next January for the (hopeful) second running of the Tyop Contest, as this one went swell
Your judges, Jeffrd10 and Newyorkadam

This week's

article for improvement

(week 10, 2014)

Because it is so vast, there are a large number of different cultures involved in Prehistoric Asia Hello, Casliber. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement 's weekly selection: Prehistoric Asia Previous selections: Human skeleton • Reconnaissance satellite Get involved with the TAFI project! You can... Nominate an article Review nominations Have your say in future selections Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT (talk) 03:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC) • Opt-out instructions[reply]

DYK for Amanita ananiceps

On 3 March 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Amanita ananiceps, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that fragments of veil patches of the mushroom Amanita ananiceps can litter the ground around it? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Amanita ananiceps. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I find MOS information about how to correctly use common names of species and subspecies? Example: Cutthroat trout is the common species overview name for that variety of trout....it's has numerous subspecies. I figured that when talking about the fish at the common name at the species level, it is NOT necessary to capitalize any letters unless it is at the beginning of a sentence...but then stumbled into the issue of Lake trout, a different species that should always have a capital letter for Lake to differentiate it from lake trout which could be construed to be any fish that are in a lake! So what say yea master of the universe....MONGO is a wee bit confused!--MONGO 18:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) and saw a bit if the answer but still ambiguous. In the case mentioned above, should Cutthroat trout ever be referred to as cutthroat or cutthroats or is it best to stick with full common species name always?--MONGO 19:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aaahhaaa, welcome to fun and games with names....see, birds (and I think butterflies) are the only critters with Proper Names, see things like the IOC website and this book....and are hence capitalised. Others...ummmm....just, weel, we just wing it really. Loads of fish have multiple names. In Oz some have different names in each state. Looks like the Australians are starting to get their shit together....

My take would be that abbreviation is okay as long as there is no ambiguity and meaning is not lost. Hence, exactness trumps accessibility but OTOH we try to make everything as accessible as possible. very situation is slightly different. I can see the problem with lake trout - might say lake-dwelling trout for those that are just trout species living in a lake. The context should mean that "cutthroats" are fine unless there is mention of freshwater pirates in the same paragraph....aarrrrrrrr.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cutthroats do live along the coast and in estuaries so a valid argument could be made that they could be confused with freshwater pirates if we just called them "cutthroat"...it would probably be, as you allude, one of the silliest arguments possible, but this is Wikipedia after all. Lake trouts/lake-dwelling trout might have a third parameter and that might be that lake trout also inhabit streams...in which case they are no longer lake-dwelling lake trout but merely lake trout...what are we going to do!!!--MONGO 12:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My head is spinning....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mine too...but I'm just a MONGO so that should be no surprise.--MONGO 20:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I need an admin to review [[1]]

ok hang on Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussions are a bit spread out [[2]] number 4-6 and found on [[3]]

Hey, Cas! If you're happy with the replacement, could you possibly say so there? It's a little ambiguous at the moment. Cheers! Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will comment there. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber, could you please come and give this a full review, since you claimed QPQ credit for it? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You kindly made comments at the PR for Ralph Richardson, and as I now have the John Gielgud article up for PR here, I wonder if you might have time and inclination to comment there. Tim riley (talk) 13:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It'll be a pleasure. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be interested in joining me in creating a DYK/GA on Urania's Mirror? I've found three good sources so far; I suspect more exist, and there's plenty to say about it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't much care if you think my comment was "off-topic" or "pointless".[4] I'll not restore it. But you have absolutely no right to remove it. Show me the bit of policy that you twisted into justifying the removal of my comment, please. Have a nice day. Doc talk 08:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc9871: The comment at its very best can be described as flippant - I'd also add ill-informed and veers squarely into item 2(a) at Wikipedia:Civility, where it could be construed as taunting or baiting. There was no need to toss it in there and see what came up. The correct response on that board should be to remove off-topic and inflammatory comments. Before readers are subjected to reams of rhetoric from all sides. I will remove comments like that if I see them again, regardless of who makes them. Anyone with maturity or decency would step away from it and move on. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly remember you from the failure in dealing with Barong/White bellied Sea Eagle/et.al. And I know you remember me from that disaster. Leave removal of my comments to less biased admins. Cheers. Doc talk 02:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, I don't remember you from that - I think you might think you are more important or memorable than you actually are.....and, ummmmm, a word to the wise - removing inane comments was/is not an admin action. If I had blocked you then yes that'd be an admin action, but that would have been drama-mongering. I'd leave that to others if you really wanted to edit-war leaving such comments in. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never said you were "involved" as far as admin actions. I am quite unimpressed by advice from an admin that willfully allowed blatant socking from a now banned user. Word to the wise, indeed. Doc talk 03:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That situation was alot more complex than it appeared on the surface, and I was unimpressed and frustrated by the socking. I initially got hauled in at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions/Jack Merridew one year unban review/mentors page - note my comments were more guarded than others and I proposed keeping mentorship, much to the annoyance of some others, if you can be bothered reading reams of text. I didn't support the final ban but I didn't oppose it either as by that stage I was frankly exhausted by the whole thing and was of a mind that sabre-rattling would just provoke more vindictiveness on his part. Anyway, he and wikipedia seem to have parted ways now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slakr's Four-tuned Award For attaining an exceptionally large number of featured . "People will recognize your accomplishments," indeed. :P (lucky numbers: 4, 8, 22, π, 73, 843.73333) Keep up the great work. =) Cheers, --slakr\ talk / 10:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Casliber. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm}} template.

— fourthords | =Λ= | 18:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

It would assist matters greatly if I'd confirmed my email address with the software. I've sent a second email. My apologies. — fourthords | =Λ= | 20:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you get my email reply of 8 March (at 20:29 UTC)? I don't want to seem a nag, I just want to make sure you received it. — fourthords | =Λ= | 20:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - haven't looked through it in detail yet. Doesn't look too dramatic. My original advice still holds I think. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get your original advice; I think you probably replied to the initial wrong email address. Would you mind sending it again to the second email I sent you? Thanks for your time and attention to this, I'm sorry for nagging! — fourthords | =Λ= | 21:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I saw you are one of the volunteers willing to help PR. Can I request to review the article above? I am going to nominate it as a good article, and I noticed that it has a possibility for having a GA promotion. Any suggestions for improving the article are welcome. Thanks and all the best! FairyTailRocks (talk) 12:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aawww, I was just about to go to bed - listen, will take a look tomorrow (am in Sydney). cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An Arbitration Clarification request motion passed. You contributed to the discussion (or are on the committee or a clerk)

The motion reads as follows:

• By way of clarification, the formal warning issued by
  WP:BLPBAN
  will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee and where necessary updated.

For the Arbitration Committee, --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• you can find the most interesting of things in some of the most amazing of places. like this little gem serving time in a Gaol in ToodyayGnangarra 01:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! A fine decorative use of a pressed specimen. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've nominated it for GA. If ye want in on the Wikicup points, please add any additional material you see fit =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help out - I've hardly edited it (weekend was a disaster time-wise) so will not claim points. Was going to browse some obsolete constellations....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of

Apologies. I have no idea how that happened. I was reading Wikipedia on the ipad at about that time (which I rarely do) so can only guess I pressed something inadvertently. Quite bizarre. Moondyne (talk) 13:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I figured something like that must have happened as I've done it myself on my smartphone several times now :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a note to let the main editors of

Alloxylon flammeum, commonly known as the Queensland tree waratah or red silky oak, is a medium-sized tree of the family Proteaceae found in the Queensland tropical rain forests. It has shiny green elliptical leaves up to 18 cm (7.2 in) long, and prominent orange-red inflorescences that appear from August to October, followed by rectangular woody seed pods that ripen in February and March. Juvenile plants have large (up to 25 cm (10 in) long) deeply lobed pinnate leaves. Previously known as Oreocallis wickhamii, the initial specimen turned out to be a different species to the one cultivated and hence a new scientific name was required. Described formally in 1991, A. flammeum was designated the type species of the genus Alloxylon. Alloxylon flammeum is a canopy or emergent tree of the Mabi rainforest community of north Queensland. It is readily adaptable to cultivation, and prefers a site with good drainage. The tree's terminal tubular flowers indicate that the species is pollinated by birds. It is listed nationally as vulnerable under the Australian Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 as most of its habitat has been cleared for agriculture and logging. (Full article...)

I was thinking of bringing Tiger to GA. It seems to be in good shape, it just needs some fixing up and maybe an little more info. What do you think? I have no intention of doing it as an FAC. LittleJerry (talk) 03:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have thought about it before but find it too depressing really. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we can find someone else to fix up that part. Would you be able to leave suggestions on the talk page? LittleJerry (talk)

Happy to. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, Cas. Great to see you commenting on my problem group of OB/GYN related psychiatric articles. Thanks for taking a look. The topics are interesting to me and I would like to see them stay in some form, but they need to approached differently than the way they were written if they are going to stay as stand alone articles. I did a major trim of case studies and casual discussion that I found in them. Do you have time or interest in working on any of them? Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 13:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

maybe....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like your maybe! :-) Thanks so very much for getting the work started on these articles. I'll pitch in and help after I get a decent rewrite started on Eclampsia. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]