User talk:Casliber/Archive 48

That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader

Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as Godot13 (submissions) had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge, Sturmvogel_66 (submissions

• level-4 vital article, to Good Article
  ;
• AHeneen (submissions) worked-up the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article, also to Good Article status;
• Rodw (submissions) developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, taking Magna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
• And last but not least,
  Featured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 one Deutsche Mark
  (pictured right), receiving the maximum bonus due to the number of Wikis that the related article appears in.

You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!

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

Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiCup.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the pools for the WikiCup and realized we were both in Pool B. It's a funny coincidence considering I just added the

Hey Tony there are no dramas claiming it for both contests. Folks have done that before. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are many backup dancers accompanying the dances of the main dancer. Hello, Casliber. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement 's weekly selection: Backup dancer Previous selections: Ice cream parlour 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) 00:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC) • Opt-out instructions[reply]

Hello, Casliber. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Telopea oreades.
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.

Hey there, found you from the

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Herald -- The Herald (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

Should I make a map for this one? Looks like the FA is going fine and your map is not bad at all, but thought I would offer. Especially since I'm a fan of corvids. --Gaff (talk) 04:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yeah go for it. I can email the original image: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Proposal. ResMar 01:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Corona Borealis you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Corona Borealis for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Herald -- The Herald (talk) 07:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. You reviewed my first DyK Nirmala novel and I'll review your GA submission as my first GA review. Plus, how was my review? Did I missed out any? Ṫ Ḧ ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 10:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No you did well - what I do when reviewing, as well as looking at the criteria, is think with an open mind, "how can this article be better?" - try and be positive and constructive. I am an old hand but many people submitting work for review will be anxious, so being helpful and cooperative is a big plus, but being thorough is good too. Do not be afraid to point out anything you do not understand (or can't figure out with a few blue links) either. We need to make articles as accessible as possible (but balance by not losing accuracy). cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish cuisine Hello, Casliber. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement 's weekly selection: Cuisine Previous selections: Trailer Trash 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) 00:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC) • Opt-out instructions[reply]

There's a couple of things I am having trouble finding a cite for:

Shady Lady White: A more adaptable form with larger flowers has succeeded the original stock (I removed this one)

Champagne: It is a three-way hybrid between T. speciosissima, T. oreades and the yellow-flowered form of T. truncata. (oreades not mentioned on PBR site) --Melburnian (talk) 09:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look. The shady lady white came from an article by proteaflora in Australian plants, but I am not sure you can just "substitute" a new genetic stock for a name like that...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it doesn't sound right, there would have to be a renaming somewhere.--Melburnian (talk) 10:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you would be willing to look over the Camas pocket gopher article and give some feedback. I'm thinking of sending it again for FA. The first go around it got a lukewarm response, mostly from lack of interest than any critical issues. This is the only article that I have sent to FA. If you like, I can post it for Peer Review, so you could count any suggestions towards WikiCup. Thank you for considering. --Gaff (talk) 20:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ok Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why that gathered so little attention - sometimes if the prose is a bit clumsy it puts people off. The lead is ok but the beginning of the taxonomy section was repetitive. I have tweaked it a little and will have another look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've finished editing it and I've slotted it into this week's edition.

I hope that I have done justice to your thoughts in editing the writing, I've attempted to formalize and rigourize them. It's your essay so be sure to make any changes that you feel you need to make, but note that we're on a tight schedule this week because of some behind-the-scenes stuff.

The other editors will look over it and make whatever tweaks they think are necessary but I don't think there's too much trouble there.

How would you like it published? I've slotted it as an op-ed but it could also be published as a piece from the

The essay is here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-03-11/Op-ed. The ticket, where all further discussion should nominally take place, is here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom#Core_Contest. ResMar 05:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia:.

Oh and I wanted to state that while thinking about the lack of new writing in the core articles is new to me the idea that Wikipedia is at a crossroads is an idea similar to one which I had and published in the Signpost in 2011. I'm seeing this idea repeatedly independently asserted across Wikipedia quite often, and I think that it's something that, on reflection, is quite obvious to all active experienced editors here. Mike Christie also had some interesting thoughts about the fallout in this 2011 essay. I wonder sometimes if there wasn't some way to link all of these narrative together. Hmm. ResMar 05:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(a) looks ok (b) yeah, a round table of sorts would be good somewhere, maybe with Lila Tretikov too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to this piece though: it would probably be unwise to publish it this week because there are some major things going on at the moment, news-wise, that will swallow up the attention of our readers this week, per Ed's email to you. However publishing it next week would lose the point of the publication in the first place—there wouldn't be enough time for interested parties to join the competition. We were wondering if you'd consider extending the contest for another couple weeks or whatever length of time and concurrently publishing the report next week? If this is not an option we can publish it this week, but be warned that it'll have a lower impact than it ought to have. ResMar 21:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ah. Did not see the email, apologies). ResMar 21:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Am thinking about extending contest two weeks. Will post now at contest talk page and see what folks think. Bit unfair to foist it on folks without discussion. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Casliber. I've reviewed this & found some minor problems. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 06:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you see the "This user has written or expanded 61 articles featured in the Did You Know section on the Main Page." user box on my User page, does such a user box exist purely for nominations that i haven't written or expanded myself? As in nomination on behalf of someone else whereby I have no had anything to do with editing the article?  — ₳aron 13:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try {{

Bencherlite^Talk 14:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

nice find - din't know that one existed either. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great thanks :D  — ₳aron 19:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Casliber. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 19:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Peer review/Lionel Messi/archive2. It would be great if you review it. Please try to. Thanks. Thanks. Abhinav0908 (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a request for comment opened on the "Involuntary Celibacy" article, with the same editor trying to restore it as the one who tried to do so previously with the latest Deletion Review. I thought you might be interested in this because of the subject. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 20:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was only in December 2014, are we recreating it already? [1] Hafspajen (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An Afghan dinner Hello, Casliber. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement 's weekly selection: Dinner Previous selections: Cuisine • Backup dancer 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) 03:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC) • Opt-out instructions[reply]

You edited this with "bleh" -- can you say what this means? It looked dubious to me, and took me a while to see that you have being making lots of edits to make the section sequence consistent. So that's OK, but I suggest that edit summaries like this run the risk of reversion, since it is not immediately clear what you are doing. I won't mention the other complaint, which is that I am supposed to be getting on with some work, and I spent all this time reading the fascinating discussions above. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh - yes, I was on a different computer..and monotonous editing I can only do for so long before I get lazy. Which discussions caught your eye? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply