/Archive 16

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22

---

What about Horse-fly, an article in need of attention, or do you have anything in mind? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not. At least we can add some references... Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will make a start on the Description section which I will detach from the Taxonomy section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think we might move the species list out of the taxobox? It's taking up a lot of wall space. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be much better elsewhere. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm feeling a bit stuck with this one - the article seems to need more but I'm not sure what. Anything you'd like me to have a go at? Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am just looking for a couple more references and then I think we might nominate the article for GA and move on. The insect groups we have previously done have had wider availability of information. What do you want to do next? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well nominate Hemiptera for GA as well. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's go for both of them. Will nominate now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's made it to GA, so now attention can turn to Hemiptera; Mantis and Cicada are waiting in the wings, depending on what you feel like doing! Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Lets finish off mantis and then move on to cicada. I should have a bit more time now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fancy mantis? Suitably scary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mantis will do fine. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Super. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've probably done enough on restructuring, images, and the human aspects - the mythology took a bit of digging. Will be mainly out for a couple of weeks now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Are you happy with me nominating Grasshopper jointly for FAC in the next couple of days? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but I'll only be able to offer minor support for a while. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, relax and enjoy yourself. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Before you nominate. I think the lede should be expanded. LittleJerry (talk) 03:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Chiswick Chap: I have expanded the lead, but having looked more fully at Grasshopper I have decided it would be better to go first for Mayfly. The latter had a much more rigorous GA review and I think it is in better shape. If you get a chance, you can indicate that you are happy with this arrangement, otherwise I will probably go ahead and nominate it anyway. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok with me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, what other insects are you going to move to FAC? LittleJerry (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have not really discussed this, but maybe something like Horse-fly which is in the process of having a comprehensive GA review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to work with you guys on bringing Mantis to FA. I even found a nice book on them. Though I may have to wait to save up some for it. Also grasshoppers seems to have had a comprehensive review. LittleJerry (talk) 03:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever Cwmhiraeth is ready; fine by me. Meanwhile, we have to get it to GA, so we need to fill in the missing citations, and globalize the conservation section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@LittleJerry also: I have revised both Mantis and Cicada quite extensively, so they are decently cited, illustrated, and have wide coverage. I'd be very happy if either of you could review the articles informally and then we can take them to GA (and maybe beyond, book purchases permitting!). Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know when exactly I'll be able to get the book. If decide to bring this the FA I'd be happy to make sure the mantis book is properly cited. Looking at the article now, I can see that a few paragraphs in "Anatomy" are uncited as well as the first paragraph of "In literature and art". LittleJerry (talk) 23:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is my intention to do further work on the Anatomy section, either today or tomorrow. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been looking at Cicada. What is the article actually about, Cicadidae or Cicadoidea? I suggest we should make it be about Cicadoidea and get rid of the uncited, incomplete list of genera which would then not need to be included, as per comments in the Horse-fly review. Any views? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. The Snodgrass chapter (ref 4) has quite good line drawings of legs, etc, as well as old but useful text. If you want any images from there I can pop them on Commons for you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth. Do you have the mantis book or are you using a googlebook preview? LittleJerry (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have it but some of it is available through Google books. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: Although the book will be useful to take this to FA, I think the article is about ready for GAN. What do you think? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think we can nominate it now. Are you doing it? Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully someone will give it a thorough review. Can you request that? LittleJerry (talk) 11:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chiswick Chap, Cwmhiraeth, I'll probably order the book next week. LittleJerry (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. We'll just have to see who we get as a reviewer. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Book ordered! For the GA review maybe Bfpage could review such they give an indepth GA reviews to grasshopper. LittleJerry (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is now about ready; it seems to say what it should, and we seem to have finished editing it! Shall I nominate it for GA? Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add a bit more to the description section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Super. Let me know if there's anything I should pay attention to. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just mining Resh, and plan to continue tomorrow. Do you fancy getting rid of the genera? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've collapsed it and got rid of two of the surplus images. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have now finished what I wanted to do with the article so I think it is probably ready for nomination. Do you want to do it? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Butterfly next? It's an old article, mostly not badly reffed, but patchy; and there are interesting areas to work on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but my efforts may be a bit spasmodic as other (point scoring) things may demand my time. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I'll proceed quietly. I thought it might be a good point scorer as it seems to be on every known wiki. Anything better we could work on? Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it will do fine, and it should not be too difficult to find sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have found this useful source which has masses of information and I plan to use it extensively. For the moment I will just use the page number in the citation, but later it can be placed in the Literature section. I propose to remove the Further reading section, but first I will wait to see if a resident editor turns up. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No deimatic cave-dragon has emerged from the woodwork breathing edit-wars. I have illustrated the article, reorganised it (that's -ised in Australian English!) and rewritten the general description, phylogeny and human stuff. Maybe you can take over now? Ping me if you want me to do some chunk of what's left. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, the tiger moth is there as an illustration that while most butterflies are (colourful, day-flying) and most moths are not, there are exceptions. Thought I'd made that clear in caption and text, but evidently more was needed! Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know you had just added it. I'm not sure that a rather lengthy article on butterflies, having stated that most moths are nocturnal and cryptic, should illustrate one that is not. Put it back if you want. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... I guess we can a) leave it out; b) put in a dingy nocturnal moth (with feathery antennae) to show a 'typical' difference from butterflies; c) put it back. Or maybe both (b) and (c). Perhaps it can wait until we see how long that section becomes - I suspect it might grow a little. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Leave it for now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not comfortable with the current Ecology section: there is heavy emphasis on two very technical matters, polyphenism and polymorphism (coatracks?). There's also an issue with the separate Mimicry section, as mimicry is mentioned in the main section. Actually, all these things are aspects of the complex antipredator defences found in butterflies. What do you think we should do? Some radical chopping? It could either be a single "Antipredator defences" section, or several short subsections. And there's in that case just a single sentence on parasites... Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have given the matter some thought so I will leave it to you. Some of the information you mention is rather too detailed for this general topic article and could perhaps be moved to the main articles mentioned at the top of the sections, with just a sentence or two summarising the information in Butterfly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. I've left you your favourite (?) parasites section ... Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will move on to that when I have finished the Life cycle section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be very close to completion here. Anything else that needs doing before we nominate it? Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done, I think. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I'll nominate it now. Ideas for another? Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about Mole cricket? Almost unreferenced and not too long! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, funnily enough I'd thought about it a while back. Let's do it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for promoting Template:Did you know nominations/Perovskia atriplicifolia. When will it appear? RO^(talk) 22:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(watching) that depends on the people building prep sets, - intentionally again different from those who promote, - keep watching the nomination , then you will notice when it's chosen, you can also look at the queue, with sets and planned times, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... which shows that it will appear - pictured - in the next set, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's in queue five, which is August 29. So will it be on in a few hours, when it turns to the 29th UTC? RO^(talk) 22:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UTC 10:10 according to the time table. Last update just happened, - in about 12 hours, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, it should appear at 10.10 UTC today. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allen3 ^talk 11:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allen3 ^talk 11:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Scleractinia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you are an active DYK contributor and are experienced in the field of reviewing articles, please take a look at the featured article nomination of Tyrone Garland if you have any spare time. Feel free to leave comments or give support. TempleM (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The finals for the 2015 Wikicup has now begun! Congrats to the 8 contestants who have survived to the finals, and well done and thanks to everyone who took part in rounds 3 and 4.

In round 3, we had a three-way tie for qualification among the wildcard contestants, so we had 34 competitors. The leader was by far Casliber (submissions) in Group B, who earned 1496 points. Although 913 of these points were bonus points, he submitted 15 articles in the DYK category. Second place overall was Coemgenus (submissions) at 864 points, who although submitted just 2 FAs for 400 points, earned double that amount for those articles in bonus points. Everyone who moved forward to Round 4 earned at least 100 points.

The scores required to move onto the semifinals were impressive; the lowest scorer to move onto the finals was 407, making this year's Wikicup as competitive as it's always been. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:

1. Cas Liber (submissions), who is competing in his sixth consecutive Wikicup final, again finished the round in first place, with an impressive 1666 points in Pool B. Casliber writes about the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. A large bulk of his points this round were bonus points.
2. Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points), second place both in Pool B and overall, earned the bulk of his points with FPs, mostly depicting currency.
3. Cwmhiraeth (submissions), first in Pool A, came in third. His specialty is natural science articles; in Round 4, he mostly submitted articles about insects and botany. Five out of the six of the GAs he submitted were level-4 vital articles.
4. Harrias (submissions), second in Pool A, took fourth overall. He tends to focus on articles about cricket and military history, specifically the 1640s First English Civil War.
5. West Virginian (submissions), from Pool A, was our highest-scoring wildcard. West Virginia tends to focus on articles about the history of (what for it!) the U.S. state of West Virginia.
6. Rodw (submissions), from Pool A, likes to work on articles about British geography and places. Most of his points this round were earned from two impressive accomplishments: a GT about Scheduled monuments in Somerset and a FT about English Heritage properties in Somerset.
7. Rationalobserver (submissions), from Pool B, came in seventh overall. RO earned the majority of her points from GARs and PRs, many of which were earned in the final hours of the round.
8. Calvin999 (submissions), also from Pool B, who was competing with RO for the final two spots in the final hours, takes the race for most GARs and PRs—48.

The intense competition between RO and Calvin999 will continue into the finals. They're both eligible for the Newcomers Trophy, given for the first time in the Wikicup; whoever makes the most points will win it.

Good luck to the finalists; the judges are sure that the competition will be fierce!

Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 11:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on the DYK. If only more of them were as interesting as this one! - Pointillist (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cwmhiraeth: I'm guessing that you don't know that the |coauthor parameter in the citation template is now deprecated. Please use |author= or |last= |first= (with the appropriate number following) instead! Otherwise, the articles keep showing up on the cleanup listings for various projects. Thanks! MeegsC (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never use the coauthor parameter in new citations I write, but I may sometimes copy a citation from elsewhere and inadvertently use it, so I will try to avoid doing so in future. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Scleractinia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Scleractinia 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 Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mantis you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bfpage -- Bfpage (talk) 11:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Angera at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yakikaki (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Round 3 Greetings, all! We hope that everyone had a nice summer. Saturday saw the end of Round 2. Things went relatively smoothly this month. The top 2 from 4 pools, plus the top participant (the wildcard, or "9th place") of all remaining competitors, moved onto Round 3. We had one withdrawal early in Round 2, so he was replaced by the next-highest scorer from Round 1. Round 2's highest scorer was Pool D's Tomandjerry211, who earned an impressive 366 points; he also reviewed the most articles (19). Close behind was Zwerg Nase, also in Pool D, at 297 points and 16 articles. The wildcard slot went to Good888. Congrats to all! Round 3 will have 9 competitors in 3 pools. The key to moving forward was reviewing articles with the longest nomination dates, as it has been in every round up to now. For example, 2 competitors only needed to review 2 articles each to win in their pools, and each article were either from the pink nomination box (20 points) or had languished in the queue for over 5 months (18 points). The GA Cup continues to be a success in many ways, even with fewer competitors this time. For some reason, the competitors in the 2015 GA Cup have reviewed fewer articles in Round 2, which has made the judges scratch their head in confusion. We've speculated many reasons for that: the summer months and vacations, our competitors are saving their strength for the final rounds, or they all live in the Pacific Northwest and the heavy wildfire smoke has affected their thinking. Whatever the reason, Round 2 competitors reviewed almost 100 articles, which is a significant impact in the task of reviewing articles for GA status. We've considered that the lower participation this competition is due to timing, so we intend to discuss the best time frame for future GA Cups. For Round 3, participants have been placed randomly in 3 pools of 3 contestants each; the top editor in each pool will progress, as well as the top 2 of all remaining users. Round 3 will start on September 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on September 28 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here. Good luck to the remaining contestants, and have fun! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6 and Jaguar, and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

Delivered on behalf of WikiProject Good articles by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you have the time, could you look at Apatosaurus? LittleJerry (talk) 20:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Cwmhiraeth - why are there no minimum requirements re: prose size for a GA candidate? It seems to me that an article with readable prose that is barely 2841 B (481 words) should not qualify, much less be rated as a "B" article but I may be overlooking something. I was going to review an article of that size and noticed there is more information that can be added if the nominating editor would put some effort into it. Is there a point where we can say there just isn't enough information in this article? Atsme^📞📧 01:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some subjects will have less known about them than others. GA Criterion 3a states that the article should "address the main aspects of the topic", but the article does not have to be comprehensive as is the case with an FAC. You don't specify what the article is but I would say that if it omitted any important things one would expect to find in such an article it could be failed. I did a review for an article about a book and would have failed it until the nominator added information on who had published it and when, and its reception. If you think there are easily filled gaps, you could say so. You can make comments also when someone else has taken on a review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Vegetable you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass (talk) 03:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Colombian forest mouse at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Kevmin § 20:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]