Archives Archive 1: May 2006 – December 2006 Archive 2: December 2006 – February 2007 Archive 3: February – March 2007 Archive 4: March – May 2007 Archive 5: May – June 2007 Archive 6: June – July 2007 Archive 7: July 2007 Archive 8: July – August 2007 Archive 9: August – September 2007 Archive 10: September – November 2007 Archive 11: November 2007 Archive 12: December 2007 – January 2008 Archive 13: January 2008 Archive 14: January–February 2008 Archive 15: February–April 2008 Archive 16: April–May 2008 Archive 17: May–June 2008 Archive 18: May–June 2008 Archive 19: July–August 2008 Archive 20: September–October 2008 Archive 21: November–December 2008 Archive 22: January 2009 Archive 23: February–March 2009 Archive 24: April–May 2009 Archive 25: June–July 2009 Archive 26: August–September 2009 Archive 27: October–November 2009 Archive 28: December–January 2009–10 Archive 29: February–April 2010 Archive 30: May–July 2010 Archive 31: August–December 2010 Archive 32: January–April 2011 Archive 33: May–June 2011 Archive 34: July–November 2011 Archive 35: December 2011 – January 2012 Archive 36: February – June 2012 Archive 37: July – September 2012 Archive 38: September – December 2012 Archive 39: January – March 2013 Archive 40: April – June 2013 Archive 41: July – September 2013 Archive 42: October – December 2013 Archive 43: January – March 2014 Archive 44: March – May 2014 Archive 45: May – August 2014 Archive 46: August – November 2014 Archive 47: November 2014 – February 2015 Archive 48: March – May 2015 Archive 49: May – July 2015 Archive 50: August – October 2015 Archive 51: October – November 2015 Archive 52: November 2015 – January 2016 Archive 53: January – April 2016 Archive 54: April - September 2016 Archive 55: September - November 2016 Archive 56: December 2016 - February 2017 Archive 57: March - June 2017 Archive 58: July - November 2017 Archive 59: December 2017 - February 2018 Archive 60: February - May 2018 Archive 61: May - Xmas 2018 Archive 62: Xmas 2018 - May 2019 Archive 63: June - October 2019 Archive 64: October 2019 - March 2020 Archive 65: April - November 2020 Archive 66: December 2020 - June 2021 Archive 67: June 2021 -

Nomenclature of fungi[edit]

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 (Donk, M.A. (1962). "The generic names proposed for Agaricaceae". Beiheifte zur Nova Hedwigia. 5: 1–320. 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 [1]

On Agaricus

Etym.: Possibly "from Agarica of Sarmatica, a district of Russia" (!). Note also Greek ἀγαρικ^[1]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.

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)

Pork[edit]

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.^[1]

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)

Bract pattern[edit]

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 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)

Question[edit]

If this is what developing flower pairs look like...

then what are these brown and white furry things?

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" 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)

Banksia menziesii with persistent florets[edit]

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)

Banksiamyces again[edit]

I finally made it to the library and got a hold of 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 Sommerville, K.; May, T. (2006). "Some taxonomic and ecological observations on Banksiamyces". The Victorian Naturalist. 123: 366–375.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) 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.

This old cone of Banksia violacea 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)

Abraham Halpern[edit]

You may want to have a look there as well. Appears to have been improved by a Szasz fan. I've read diagonally 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)

Aboriginal Astronomy[edit]

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)

Orange-bellied Parrot[edit]

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)

got any advice for writing a constellation FA?[edit]

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 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)

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)

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)

Carcinoma in situ[edit]

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 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 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)

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

@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 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)

Running a contest (talk page watchers welcome)[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Stub contest[edit]

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)

Take the lead![edit]

Golden gnome[edit]

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)

This week's article for improvement (week 38, 2021)[edit]

advice for unblock request sought[edit]

Hi! I appealed an unblock request more than a month ago. The consensus seemed to be that I was making edits without reaching an understanding with other users; however, in addition to 2 of my edits being accepted (Goldsmith and Sussman) and having peaceful discussions with others I disagreed with previously, I have tried to communicate proposals for other articles like Singha and Corey Stewart, but am being ignored. Perhaps it's time for an unblock? Thank you for your consideration. Sucker for All (talk) 13:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll look later - late here on Oz east coast and I need to sleep Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Alright. Have you had a chance to look into my case yet? Thank you for your considerations Sucker for All (talk) 13:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Casliber:

I'll look on your talk page Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok. Have you reached any conclusions? I believe my case for being unblocked, after being so patient and not sockpuppeting a different account, is open shut .. Sucker for All (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC) :::::Show me an editing situation where you believe you were right and treated unfairly. Let's start from there. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:WABC_(AM) , I was having discussions at the talk page, blueboyliny was not, and yet he's still editing the article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WABC_(AM)&action=history . This user was even blocked https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BlueboyLINY&diff=1034122151&oldid=1034121043 for his editing this article previously and accusing me https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sucker_for_All&diff=1033612911&oldid=1033612547 of doing the things he was in fact doing.. (I was also falsely accused of being a sockpuppet by JesseRafe). I don't want to point out others, but I was clearly engaged in discussions to improve the article whereas he was not. Sucker for All (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I think you were a little hard done by on that page a little, though refacting someone else's message is a big social no-no. Got another? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

What does "refacting someone else's message" mean? Who did I do this to? I tagged you in an article's talk page with a user with whom I'm trying to engage. I also created an Ashley Strohmier page, similar to the Todd Piro one I created a while ago Sucker for All (talk) 18:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I think @PerpetuityGrat: is referring to this edit of yours, which would have been better if you'd indented your replies more but whatever. However, this is a standard method of replying to points at (for instance FAC, viz Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Viatkogorgon/archive1) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 21[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Topknot pigeon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cape York.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

TFA[edit]

September songs

more green

Thank you today for Banksia sceptrum, introduced as "about yet another banksia (I try to spread these out!), and would be the 30th article to be nominated to the FAC process"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Today: a woman in red, two who died under "in memoriam" and LouisAlain missed - my first editnotice read: "Every editor is a human being" which is quoted from a comment by Geometry guy in a 2012 discussion on WP:AN. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm at a loss[edit]

It might be simpler to list my issues with the Pierson, Iowa GA review this way. SL93 (talk) 04:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

"Quite a few missing sections: transportation or general infrastructure, local government, culture/events, notable people, healthcare. While some of these are covered, they need to be given separate sections or subsections." - It cannot have a transportation section or a healthcare section.

" Some sections are a bit too promotional to be truly neutral." Only two sentences were pointed out as sounding promotional.

"The last sentence is a bit promotional" - The last sentence of the lead only summarizes what the article already has.

"The snowmobile accident and its memorial are not notable" - That shouldn't matter. Not everything in the article needs to meet the GNG. The golf course and other memorials certainly aren't notable by themselves, but the reviewer made no mention of those.

"Geography" - It is the same as the Kingsley, Iowa article which is you approved as a GA.

"Organization listings should have descriptions and better sources" What better sources?

"contains an area that has plants and flowers that are native to the area": how is this notable?" - Same issue as the snowmobile accident and its memorial.

""summer of 2017" should be replaced with the month per MOS:SEASON" - It wasn't just one month.

"Ref 3 seems to be an advertisement and is missing the page number" - It isn't an advertisement.

"Ref 4 needs a publisher" - The book mentions no publishers and it is a full view on Google Books.

"Ref 8 needs a publisher" - Why does an official city website need a publisher?

"Ref 18 should not use all caps and should use cite map" - Why should it use cite map? SL93 (talk) 04:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I thought the last sentence of the lead was nebulous and needed to be more precise. I'd keep the accident and memorial in it (as it's a small town). Geography is thin section, anything that is possible to add (such as surrounds) would be good. I will look at the refs a bit later - hard where I am right now. I'll have a think about the sectioning. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I responded to all of the issues, but I disgree with or don't understand much of what was brought up by the reviewer. As for geography, the only extra thing that I can think of is that Pierson is surrounded by countryside. SL93 (talk) 23:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Can you source that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:35, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

No, but I'm not sure if it needs to be added. Every town in Iowa is surrounded by countryside. I did just find "The City of Pierson is located in the north-eastern part of Woodbury County, in the Northwest part of Iowa." from the official website. SL93 (talk) 00:43, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm, I know what you mean. Many years ago I spent 4th July long weekend in Twin Lakes Iowa - got off Amtrak train and had some private guy drive me the (considerable) distance between train and there. Am busy right now (is 11am here in Oz and need to get off desktop). Will look tonight Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:51, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

The Kingsley, Iowa library has allowed me to check out their 2008 reference book on Pierson, Iowa, but only until Monday morning. I will add information from it. SL93 (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I have expanded the article and made some changes. I also renominated it for GA. SL93 (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I think I fixed the issues so far. SL93 (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. The bot updated the nomination as failed for some reason. SL93 (talk) 13:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Another editor took care of it. SL93 (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Promotion of Jameson's mamba[edit]

Congratulations, Casliber! The article you nominated, Jameson's mamba, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Nice job cas! Dracophyllum > FAC 08:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 39, 2021)[edit]

Symphyotrichum lateriflorum FAC[edit]

Hi, Casliber, I nominated Symphyotrichum lateriflorum for FA and wondered if you could take a look or if not, ping someone who can. Thanks in advance! Review comments page Eewilson (talk) 04:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I didn't mean Featured Article Review. I meant I nominated it as a Featured Article Candidate! Eewilson (talk) 13:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Crap, I knew there was something else on my todo list....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 28[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dawsonia longiseta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dawsonia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Months of African Cinema Global Contest![edit]

Greetings!

The AfroCine Project core team is happy to inform you that the Months of African Cinema Contest is happening again this year in October and November. We invite Wikipedians all over the world to join in improving content related to African cinema on Wikipedia!

Please list your username under the participants’ section of the contest page to indicate your interest in participating in this contest. The term "African" in the context of this contest, includes people of African descent from all over the world, which includes the diaspora and the Caribbean.

The following prizes would be recognized at the end of the contest:

• Overall winner
  • 1st - $500
  • 2nd - $200
  • 3rd - $100
• Diversity winner - $100
• Gender-gap fillers - $100
• Language Winners - up to $100*

Also look out for local prizes from affiliates in your countries or communities! For further information about the contest, the prizes and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. We look forward to your participation.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 23:20, 30th September 2021 (UTC)

Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

This week's article for improvement (week 40, 2021)[edit]

A geographer is a physical scientist, social scientist or humanist whose area of study is geography, the study of Earth's natural environment and human society, including how society and nature interacts. Pictured is The Geographer (1668-69), by Johannes Vermeer. Hello, Casliber. The article for improvement of the week is: Geographer Please be bold and help improve it! Previous selections: No such thing as a stupid question • Student exchange program Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • Opt-out instructions

British Empire FAR[edit]

Hi Casliber,

Discussion is still continuing on this FAR. I think it is going in circles at this late stage. I think you suggested you'd close the discussion around September 30th? Thank for your help, I know that unfortunately there is a lot of discussion to get through.--Quality posts here (talk) 16:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Headdesk....headdesk...headdesk....(long pause)..........(drinks another cup of coffee)......(in best Basil Fawlty voice) Right then.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your swift action here. I know it's a huge read, unfortunately.--Quality posts here (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 5[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Coastal taipan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guugu Yimithirr.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

TFA[edit]

October songs

Thank you today for Eastern brown snake, "about a badass snake that is considered the world's second most venomous snake...except that it isn't...except that it sort of is. The ranking was based on a highly potent neurotoxin isolated from the venom...except that in people it has almost no neurotoxic effects...however, it is responsible for most deaths from snakebite in Australia due to the severe damage it does to the human circulatory system."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Today: memories in friendship --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA 2021 review update[edit]

Best, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 41, 2021)[edit]

Fish sauce is a liquid condiment made from fish or krill that have been coated in salt and fermented for up to two years. Pictured is Cambodian sweet fish sauce mixed with chopped chili peppers and slices of garlic. Hello, Casliber. The article for improvement of the week is: Fish sauce Please be bold and help improve it! Previous selections: Geographer • No such thing as a stupid question Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • Opt-out instructions

Disambiguation link notification for October 12[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Acanthophis

added a link pointing to Death adder

Coastal taipan

added a link pointing to Charles Tanner

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Psychology[edit]

Hi there, Cas Liber. I'm part of a group of psychologists, psychoanalysts, psychiatrists, and neuroscientists who are interested in re-activating Wikiproject Psychology and improving the psychology pages, particularly those pertaining to psychodynamic psychology, which does not always get balanced treatment on Wikipedia. We are interested in a multi-disciplinary, integrative approach to psychology, not in trying to whitewash controversies or engage in hagiography of Freud, but we would like to see a clearer, more accurate representation of his important contributions, including pioneering insight-oriented psychotherapy and describing defense mechanisms like denial (which has become a real problem in the domain of public health, interfering with vaccination, etc., and should be talked about openly on Wikipedia!). We would also be able to contribute to creating a fairer, more nuanced, but also clear-eyed account of the field's long history of methodological failings and its marginalized status, which are more complex than the misleading and activist accusation of "pseudoscience." Perhaps you could help us navigate some of the anti-Freudian activism on pages like "Freud" and "Psychoanalysis," where gross violations like sockpuppetry have been an issue. For example, this user Polisher of Cobwebs, who also edits under the name Freeknowledgecreator and possibly Skoojal, has written a great deal of the Freud page, engaged in edit wars to defend his/her idea that only a negative account of Freud is accurate, and he/she appears to still be active there. Doc James let me know about the extraordinary work you've done for Wikipedia and WikiProject Medicine and we would love to have your help with WikiProject Psychology. Would you like to join us or explore the possibility of working together? Hypoplectrus (talk) 01:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi - yes - receptive to being involved. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Skoojal/Archive - Polisher of Cobwebs has been blocked for several years and has tried to illegally return to editing. Will have a look later. Alot on my plate ATM but as I write am thinking I am keen to be involved Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Delighted to hear this. What is the best way to stay in communication with you? Hypoplectrus (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Open to all/any Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I reached out via LinkedIn and followed you on Twitter. Looking forward to touching base a bit more if / when you can. I know you are busy and promise to be respectful of your time! Hypoplectrus (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Heh cool/wow linkedin actually serves a purpose in my life, who'd a thunk it :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 42, 2021)[edit]

The Big Five personality traits is a suggested taxonomy, or grouping, for personality traits. Hello, Casliber. The article for improvement of the week is: Personality Please be bold and help improve it! Previous selections: Fish sauce • Geographer Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • Opt-out instructions

DYK for Yellowtail flounder[edit]

On 21 October 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Yellowtail flounder, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that yellowtail flounders are able to camouflage and mimic the seafloor? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Yellowtail flounder. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Yellowtail flounder), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

This week's article for improvement (week 43, 2021)[edit]

The Portland Building (1982) in Portland, Oregon by architect Michael Graves is an example of Postmodern architecture. Hello, Casliber. The article for improvement of the week is: Postmodernism Please be bold and help improve it! Previous selections: Personality • Fish sauce Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • Opt-out instructions

DYK for National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance[edit]

On 30 October 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a 1997 whooping cough outbreak in part led to the establishment of the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance in Australia? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

Seabird[edit]

Hi, I have really appreciated your great work on the Kererū article. This has led me to ask whether you have interest and capacity to help improve the Seabird article that was recently delisted from FA status. I am not a topic expert, but New Zealand is sometimes said to be the "seabird capital of the world", and as a New Zealander, I have an interest in seabirds. I am currently working to improve Hutton's shearwater, as one example,and other articles associated with Kaikōura - a "hot spot" for seabirds in New Zealand. Are you able to help me out with work to improve Seabird. The initial aim would be to get it to a state where it could be nominated for GA. ?? Marshelec (talk) 05:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, here's a sticking point...could you find a reliable source with a definition for what a seabird is, and what is and isn't a seabird.....this stonkered me while trying to save the article...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 17:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The most robust and authoritative definition I have found so far is from Bird Conservation International (2012) - see page 2 of the linked paper. I have added the bolding in the quote below.^[1]

We follow the taxonomy of BirdLife International (2010a) and define seabirds as species for which a large proportion of the total population rely on the marine environment for at least part of the year. With this circumscription, 346 species qualify, of which 282 meet a stricter definition (excluding ducks, loons, etc.) used in some earlier reviews (e.g. Croxall et al. 1984). We subdivided seabirds into three groups. Pelagic seabirds are those that primarily use marine pelagic deep water (sea above open ocean, typically >200 m in depth) and/or marine neritic pelagic continental shelf water (sea above continental shelf or around near-shore oceanic islands, typically <200 m in depth) excluding species that may occasionally use these habitats, but that are more typical of coastal inshore waters. Coastal seabirds (year-round) are those that primarily use coastal inshore water (sea along coasts, typically <8 km from the shoreline) throughout the year, excluding species that may occasionally use this habitat, but do not do so typically. Coastal seabirds (nonbreeding season) are those that primarily use coastal inshore water during the non-breeding season, excluding species that may occasionally use this habitat but do not do so typically.

A simpler and shorter definition is: A seabird can be defined as a bird that makes its living primarily from the ocean, beyond the intertidal or surf zone. ^[2]

Perhaps the most useful definition I found was from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US Dept of Commerce, quoted here:^[3]

Generally speaking, seabirds are birds that are adapted for life in a marine environment. While these adaptations can be exhibited in a variety of different ways, they’re often attributed to their behavior and physiology. There are many different groups of birds that use saltwater habitats but aren’t considered true seabirds. They include loons, grebes, sea ducks, herons, and shorebirds (except for two phalarope species that spend their winters in the open ocean). The groups that are usually considered true seabirds are “tubenoses”: shearwaters, petrels, storm-petrels, and albatrosses. The name “tubenose” refers to the tubular structures on the bills of these birds that cover the nostrils. These birds have well-developed glands near these bill tubes that allow them to consume seawater and then excrete salt from the solution. That means these birds will not need to drink or even see freshwater for their entire lives. Penguins, skuas, gulls, terns, alcids, boobies, tropicbirds, frigatebirds, and skimmers are also considered seabirds. However, not all species under those groups depend on the ocean for their entire life cycle.

Which of these do you prefer ? Marshelec (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA Reform 2021 Phase 2 has begun[edit]

16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

William Hague[edit]

Hi Casliber. Would you mind unprotecting William Hague? The subject is no longer an active politician. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Done...let's see how it goes...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

DYK for HD 175167[edit]

On 1 November 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article HD 175167, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that it took five years of observations to find the planet orbiting the star HD 175167? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/HD 175167. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, HD 175167), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

This week's article for improvement (week 44, 2021)[edit]

Isabel Adrian is a Swedish television personality, producer, author and model. Pictured is Adrian in 2013. Hello, Casliber. The article for improvement of the week is: Isabel Adrian Please be bold and help improve it! Previous selections: Postmodernism • Personality Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • Opt-out instructions

WikiCup 2021 November newsletter[edit]

The WikiCup is over for another year and the finalists can relax! Our Champion this year is The Rambling Man (submissions), who amassed over 5000 points in the final round, achieving 8 featured articles and almost 500 reviews. It was a very competitive round; seven of the finalists achieved over 1000 points in the round (enough to win the 2019 contest), and three scored over 3000 (enough to win the 2020 event). Our 2021 finalists and their scores were:

1. The Rambling Man (submissions) with 5072 points
2. Lee Vilenski (submissions) with 3276 points
3. Amakuru (submissions) with 3197 points
4. Epicgenius (submissions) with 1611 points
5. Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1571 points
6. BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 1420 points
7. Hog Farm (submissions) with 1043 points
8. Bloom6132 (submissions) with 528 points

All those who reached the final round will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. Awards will be handed out in the next few days.

• The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the featured article prize, for 8 FAs in round 5.
• Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the featured list prize, for 3 FLs in round 5.
• Gog the Mild (submissions) wins the featured topic prize, for 13 articles in a featured topic in round 5.
• Epicgenius (submissions) wins the good article prize, for 63 GAs in round 4.
• The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the good topic prize, for 86 articles in good topics in round 5.
• The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the reviewer prize, for 68 FAC reviews and 213 GAN reviews, both in round 5.
• Epicgenius (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 30 did you know articles in round 3 and 105 overall.
• Bloom6132 (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 71 in the news articles in round 1 and 284 overall.

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether they made it to the final round or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup, some of whom did very well. Wikipedia has benefitted greatly from the quality creations, expansions and improvements made, and the numerous reviews performed. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition, not forgetting User:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot.

If you have views on whether the rules or scoring need adjustment for next year's contest, please comment on the WikiCup talk page. 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 2022 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. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

TFAs for December 2021[edit]

Just letting you know I've selected Jameson's mamba TFA for 16 December and Australian boobook for 21 December. You know the drill. Hope you're doing well.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Cheers! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 45, 2021)[edit]

Hang gliding is an example of an air sport. Hello, Casliber. The article for improvement of the week is: Air sports Please be bold and help improve it! Previous selections: Isabel Adrian • Postmodernism Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • Opt-out instructions

crossing paths[edit]

Hey : nice that our paths cross again at the wreathed hornbill!! Are you interested in national parks? I've been working on Mudumalai National Park + collated some 50+ refs. I had asked Shyamal a while ago to see whether this page is worth being upgraded to B-class now, but he seems not to have time. Would YOU have? Once upgraded, I would like to GAN it. − BhagyaMani (talk) 12:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Bit busy but I will see what I can do Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The Months of African Cinema Contest Continues in November![edit]

Greetings,

It is already past the middle of the contest and we are really excited about the Months of African Contest 2021 achievements so far! We want to extend our sincere gratitude for the time and energy you have invested. If you have not yet participated in the contest, it is not too late to do it. Please list your username as a participant on the contest’s main page.

Please remember to list the articles you have improved or created on the article achievements' section of the contest page so they can be tracked. In order to win prizes, be sure to also list your article in the users by articles. Please note that your articles must be present in both the article achievement section on the main contest page, as well as on the Users By Articles page for you to qualify for a prize.

We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:

• Overall winner
  • 1st - $500
  • 2nd - $200
  • 3rd - $100
• Diversity winner - $100
• Gender-gap filler - $100
• Language Winners - up to $100*

Thank you once again for your valued participation! --Jamie Tubers (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

DYK for Corsi-Rosenthal Box[edit]

On 13 November 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Corsi-Rosenthal Box, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the Corsi-Rosenthal Box (example pictured) is a homemade air purifier that was designed during the COVID-19 pandemic as an alternative to more expensive air purification systems? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Corsi-Rosenthal Box. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Corsi-Rosenthal Box), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 12,885 views (1,073.8 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of November 2021—nice work!

This week's article for improvement (week 46, 2021)[edit]

Dettifoss, located in northeast Iceland, is the largest waterfall in Europe in terms of volume discharge, with an average water flow of 200 m3/s. Hello, Casliber. The article for improvement of the week is: Geography of Iceland Please be bold and help improve it! Previous selections: Air sports • Isabel Adrian Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • Opt-out instructions

• On New Year's Day, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
• Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed.
• Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.

• Join the conversations on our talkpage.

Click here and remove your username from the mailing list to opt out of any future messages.

--Usernameunique