User talk:Cwmhiraeth

/Archive 12

---

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cryptotermes brevis may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• colony consists of several different castes; reproductives including a queen, king and alates {unmated winged termites); soldiers and pseudergates (false workers). The king and queen have dark brown, chitinous cuticles

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Blue wildebeest

Hi! Just to inform you that I am nominating the article for GAN. So we should be ready for the review. Thanks for all your valuable edits here! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

OK. We'll see how it goes. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Cryptotermes brevis

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Eulaema meriana

The DYK project (nominate) 08:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Sthenoteuthis pteropus

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Astichopus

The DYK project (nominate) 10:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Eulaema mocsaryi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mutualism

Isopoda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Morphology

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Problematic new editor on Poena cullei

User "Complainer" is doggedly deleting an explanatory half-sentence in the lead on Poena cullei on the meaning of parricide (a not all usual word), claiming that explanation is a "disruption" of the page. he is now up on 3RR.Arildnordby (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

never mind. Not too big an issue.Arildnordby (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Atlantic Puffin

This is a note to let the main editors of Atlantic Puffin know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on April 2, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at present, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 2, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Atlantic Puffin is a species of seabird in the auk family and is the only puffin native to the Atlantic Ocean. It breeds in Iceland, Norway, Greenland, Newfoundland and many North Atlantic islands, and as far south as Maine in the west and the British Isles in the east. It has a black crown and back, pale grey cheek patches and white underparts. Its broad, boldly marked red and black beak and orange legs contrast with its plumage. The Atlantic Puffin spends the autumn and winter in the open ocean of the cold northern seas and returns to coastal areas at the start of the breeding season in late spring. It nests in clifftop colonies, digging a burrow in which a single white egg is laid. After about six weeks, chicks are fully fledged and make their way at night to the sea, not returning to land for several years. Colonies are mostly on islands where there are no terrestrial predators but adult birds and newly fledged chicks are at risk of attacks from the air by gulls and skuas. The Atlantic Puffin's striking appearance, large colourful bill, waddling gait and behaviour have given rise to nicknames such as "clown of the sea" and "sea parrot". It is the official bird symbol for the Canadian province of Newfoundland and Labrador. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

precious again, the interesting bird with an unusual lifestyle, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

... and your admirable work on Poultry, all these birds winning a prize! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Copula (jellyfish)

Thank you Victuallers (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Histioteuthis reversa

The DYK project (nominate) 10:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Rossia pacifica

Materialscientist (talk) 04:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Trophodiscus almus

Materialscientist (talk) 07:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Care for the Wild International

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

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

A tag has been placed on Care for the Wild International requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a club, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. SFK2 (talk) 08:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Sabella spallanzanii

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 20:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Tiger

I left a new update at the talk page. When we're ready would you like to nominate? I sure it would be worth a lot of points for WikiCup. LittleJerry (talk) 20:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I will be happy to do that. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the last thing we need to do is add a subsection on genomics based on this paper. Would you be able to do it? LittleJerry (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer not to. It is not my area of expertise and I might make a hash of it. Looking at a few mammal FAs, I can't find any that delve into the animal's genome. As we are going for GA and not FA, the article does not need to be comprehensive and unless you feel competent, I suggest we leave it out, other than saying the tiger and some other of the big cats have had their genomes sequenced. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay then. LittleJerry (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I think we're ready. You can nominate anytime you like. LittleJerry (talk) 23:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Right you are. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed some of the old ones looked a little flaky. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I found this as a source for tiger subspecies coat colors and stripe patterns. I think you should add some on the Sumatran. LittleJerry (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I shall be on holiday for some days now; it sounds worth adding the ref, if you can bear to do it. Both Cwmhiraeth and I have commented on the FA-like criteria being applied to the article's references, basically going beyond what is needed for GA - were we to be failed on this, an appeal would be in order. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tiger

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tiger 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 Shoebox2 -- Shoebox2 (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 March newsletter

A quick update as we are half way through round two of this year's competition. WikiCup newcomer Godot13 (submissions) (Pool E) leads, having produced a massive set of featured pictures for Silver certificate (United States), an article also brought to featured list status. Former finalist Adam Cuerden (submissions) (Pool G) is in second, which he owes mostly to his work with historical images, including a number of images from Urania's Mirror, an article also brought to good status. 2010 champion (Pool C) is third overall, thanks to contributions relating to naval history, including the newly featured Japanese battleship Nagato. Cliftonian (submissions), who currently leads Pool A and is sixth overall, takes the title for the highest scoring individual article of the competition so far, with the top importance featured article Ian Smith.

With 26 people having already scored over 100 points, it is likely that well over 100 points will be needed to secure a place in round 3. Recent years have required 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) and 100 (2010). Remember that only 64 will progress to round 3 at the end of April. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page; if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Puffins!

		The Fauna Barnstar
		Congratulations for seeing your work on the adorably odd and rascally Atlantic Puffin as today's TFA--coincidentally, one of my favourite birds. --ColonelHenry (talk) 12:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, they are most interesting birds! Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Coptotermes frenchi

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Coptotermes acinaciformis

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup error

Hi there- this is just a quick note to apologise for a small but important mistake in the last WikiCup newsletter; it is not 64 users who will progress to the next round, but 32. J Milburn (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Tiger

Got your message, I will see what I can do. Research papers on felids are numerous but they rarely contain general information (e.g. tiger cub weights). I am not a native English speaker and my written English may not be up to the GA standards but I think I can find better sources, thanks. BigCat82 (talk) 11:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Your written English seems pretty good to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I hope you can get through this. Sorry I can't help more, I really can't do much now. Too much stress from personal life. LittleJerry (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, get well soon. Cwmhiraeth, is there anything special I should be doing to the article? Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I've tidied a lot of references, arranged some images and added lengths and weights to subspecies (with refs). Do you think we're now ready? Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Good work! Ready for what? I expect you mean tell ShoeBox2 that we are done. I would think so. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Euglossa dilemma

hi Cwmhiraeth: over at Template:Did you know nominations/Euglossa dilemma the hook is not confirmed by the reference -the reference states that the Ficus altissima became invasive after the introduction of a polinating wasp, Eupristina[1] not this bee. So I suggest correcting the article and coming up with a new hook, as the rest of the criteria seem satisfied. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

March 2014 Core Contest

	Aeq. Second Prize
	For an appetising revamp of poultry, you've come equal second in the March 2014 Core Contest! Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

That was an amazing piece of work, throwing out all the inessential material, reorganizing it, and adding so much new text and references. Bravo! Binksternet (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to Casliber and all the judges for their hard work in organising and judging the competition. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello Cwmhiraeth, I'm here onbehalf of WP:ORPHAN in which you are also a participant. So, we want your opinion to a WP:ORPHAN related matter. It is a proposal by Technical 13. Please have a look here. Your opinion (i.e support, oppose etc) are very much appreciated there. Thank you. By Jim Cartar through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Conopeum seurati, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Operculum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Chameleon goby

Thank you for your help Victuallers (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

All Glory Laud and Honour DYK

I know you kindly reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/All Glory, Laud and Honour before but can I ask if you could please re-add the tick because there have been some new suggestions. Personally I prefer ALT1 but I'll leave it up to you. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Coptotermes elisae

Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Backlog drive

Hello Cwmhiraeth,

WikiProject Orphanage is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive to de-orphan articles which have orphan tags!
The goal is to eliminate the backlog of orphan articles. There are currently 55868 articles which have orphan tags. The drive is running from April 12, 2014 to May 12, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all editors participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive. To add your name in the participants list click here.
So start de-orphaning articles! Click here to see the list of articles need de-orphaning. Visit Suggestions for how to de-orphan an article to know more!

Thanks. _{Opt-out Instructions} by Jim Cartar on behalf of WikiProject Orphanage through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tiger

The article Tiger you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Tiger for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shoebox2 -- Shoebox2 (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Euglossa dilemma

slakr^\ talk / 10:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Hang on!

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I hope the weird witch-hunt going on at the moment doesn't drive you away, it's too nice working with you! FunkMonk (talk) 11:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

With a Bar to hang below the Barnstar. I had heard of this sort of thing but happily never saw it happen so close to home before. I hope to work with you many more times. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, my criticisms of the review process and comments about articles you've contributed to are all about the articles and nothing about you as an editor at all. I would expect others to follow the same route and not make anything personal. You've kept up good decorum and standards when it would be so easy to fight back the provocation, and that has to be commended. Happy editing! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your confidence in me. I thought you might never want to collaborate with me again, CC. As for being driven away, I think not. That would be a resounding victory for my chief critic and under normal circumstances I enjoy editing too much. I must look into whether I can close the review. The longer they all beaver away, the more things they will find to criticise. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Seconding this. Your resilience is impressive. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 04:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Requests for reviewers

In case you have not seen it, I copy here what I have just added to the ANI thread:

"As NewYorkBrad says, the priority is to review more of the articles. Following a suggestion made further up, I am about to post a neutrally-worded message on the talk pages of some relevant WikiProjects asking for uninvolved people to join in the editor review. I will add links here as soon as I have done that. JohnCD (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Links to requests on the talk pages of WikiProjects Algae, Amphibians and Reptiles, Arthropods, Fungi, Insects, Marine life, Microbiology. Any suggestions for other WikiProjects to ask? JohnCD (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)"

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. However I would greatly object to a wholesale tagging of the articles I have written or worked on without each individual article to tag having been individually evaluated first. I don't think Chiswick Chap would like to see Sea, the FA we jointly worked on, tagged as suspect. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I have added your request to the following project talk pages: Fishes, Animals and Birds. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Good, thank you. I saw the suggestion on the AN/I page, but had not got round to doing it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry

Sincerest apologies for my error, Cwmhiraeth. I can only imagine how frustrating it must be to be criticised by someone making such a goose of themselves. Feel free to administer trout. Despite everything, as a lowly WikiGnome I'm still in awe of your tremendous contributions here. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology, I don't think I will administer the trout. If you really mean "I'm still in awe of your tremendous contributions here", you could mention it at my review page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

How to do it

Apparently this is how to respond to criticism, you obviously got it wrong. Well, at least we know that one of the gang is better at dishing it out than taking it. Also interesting to find an admin who removes messages from their talk page that are not obscene or grossly offensive. Good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

You might like to look at the history of AfadsBad's talk page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Out of curiosity I looked at the edit you linked. I think you made a fair point. My own view as I indicated in my initial post at the review is that the attacks are over the top and unwarranted. Cwmhiraeth I hope you continue to edit, I think your articles are good and add value to WP. In particular it does not both me if there are minor inaccuracies by taking an article on a given species from non-existant to at least start class you have made something available, it can then be refined by other more specialised editors and improved. The volume of work you have done provides a valuable service. I wish you would include turtles in your list of pages written, then I could refine them rather than write them from scratch. Don't let these people get you down, don't let them ruin you as an editor. cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 12:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Your comments are really heartening and its so nice to have some encouragement in a sea of criticism. They reflect my view as to my utility as an editor but not that of most of the editors at the review. My articles are far from perfect, but in my opinion are an improvement on no article or a brief stub. Had you any particular turtle species in mind? I see that African dwarf mud turtle (Pelusios nanus) is a brief stub, shall I have a go at enlarging it? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Anything you like, I will see any turtle article you edit, then can work from there. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 17:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Eurasian Wryneck

I posted this to see what the perceived problem is. If there is a reply, we can fix any real problem, if there isn't I'll remove the tag since the section is all referenced and he is obviously trying to make a point. I'll be away intermittently over Easter, but there's no rush with this, and it gives your nemesis time to respond. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I would have done this myself, but I'm hardly impartial. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

For now... Happy Easter Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Your request at your review

Hi Cwmhiraeth,

You asked for comments from "independent-minded" editors at your review. I'd prefer not to comment there, but I did want to share a few thoughts with you.

By way of introduction, I have a Ph.D. in computer science with an undergraduate degree in theater and a long-lasting fascination with evolutionary biology. Let me start off with an example to show you where I think you can improve a bit.

Pulling a book at random from my shelf (Rochkind's Advanced Unix Programming) and opening it to a random passage, I read:

If the KEY argument is equal to IPC_PRIVATE, a queue is created regardless of whether FLAGS has the IPC_CREAT bit on. (p. 183)

Consider paraphrasing the above for use in an article. A reasonably intelligent person would guess that the terms in ALL CAPS are being used as terms of art and should be quoted directly. Beyond that, though, someone without training in CompSci probably isn't going to know that "argument", "is equal to", "queue", "bit" and "on" are also terms of art, and as such should not be modified. That's going to limit the paraphrasing to changing the structure, perhaps:

Queue creation is independent of the IPC_CREAT bit in FLAGS if the argument KEY is IPC_PRIVATE.

Where I see you getting tripped up is in paraphrasing terms of art (or paraphrasing what your critics think might be terms of art). If you have a deep understanding of the vocabulary of a particular field, then it's obvious what words you can change and how, and it also becomes fairly straightforward to defend your choices. (The word "on" in the above could be replaced with "high", and I can cite chapter and verse as to why that's allowed.)

If you're not yet familiar with the specialized vocabulary of the article you're editing (and that's going to be the case most of the time), then you'll probably want to err on the side of reproducing the language and varying the sentence structure (as I did above).

Doing this is hard. Looking at my own example I noticed that I screwed it up. Do you see how? (I should have "and will occur" prior to "if the argument".)

Making that change in how you paraphrase is a minor tweak. Beyond that, keep doing what you're doing. Feel free to ping me or email me if there are a few specific examples where you'd like another set of eyes. I know lots of biologists, so it shouldn't be hard to get an expert opinion of if necessary.

Finally, you've held up extraordinarily well in some very trying circumstances. That speaks well of your character. I think the worst of it is over, and I'm looking forward to you having some drama-free days ahead.

With much respect,

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, you have got it spot on. In the example you give, the subject is completely unfamiliar to me. If I were working on a relevant article it would be best if I either quoted the sentence verbatim or left the information out completely. The problem comes when I look at a source (with all its technical terms) and think I understand what it is saying and try to paraphrase it, but get it wrong.

I don't think colours used in descriptions of organisms are generally "terms of art" except perhaps at the first description of a species, and where it has a range of colours I think it reasonable to equate orangish-pink with pinkish-orange. The editor review does feel more like a war rather than an attempt to assess my strengths and weaknesses, and many of the participators are Wikipediocracy regulars and start out with a bias against me. Never mind.

Cheers, Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@ Lesser Cartographies, what a fine and well-expounded example. I'd add that 'terms of art' (guess I'd call'em 'technical terms') are to a degree in the eye of the beholder. I was familiar from university with the term graceful degradation, which the lecturer cheerfully varied as in 'which enabled performance to degrade gracefully when something failed...', a graceful usage of the technical term. I got a rude shock in industry where the concept was much less familiar, and the noun-phrase was invariable, any variant being treated as a hideous solecism! Not worth protesting that things were different at college, of course. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: I am writing an article in my userspace on an octopus and am using this source. I notice that the terms "Uniform Light" and "Stippled" are given capital letters in the source. Are these 'terms of art'? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Normally these are nothing special, but it is clear that these are names of patterns within this particular paper, i.e. locally-defined terms. You have the choice, I think, of either naming the paper and using its terms ("Hanlon et al 2010 identified patterns that they named as ..."), or of using it simply as a ref and using general terms ("M. defilippi is able to mimic the behaviour and coloration of a flounder ..."). All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Lebrunia coralligens

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Spicara maena

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Spicara smaris

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

You are not being harassed

You're rubbish and you should suck it up. You cannot deny the numerous technical errors, invented stuff, or misstated sources that punctuate your articles, I've been through them. Instead of fighting back - as if you were right - you should have accepted your limitations. The errors are proved and you made them. The fact that this has all been caused by you being in denial is everything that this drama site is!86.166.106.179 (talk) 10:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Your comments are much appreciated :-) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

TIME magazine article on "Yank" Levy

Here is the text from the Time Magazine article. I would have e-mailed it to you, but that option doesn't seem to exist on your page.

http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,801398,00.html You, Too, May Be A Guerrilla [redacted]

Thank you for looking at the article and the DYK. I hope this takes care of your need to verify the "cheese cutter" story.

You might have to adjust type size on your display.

This is the text of the whole article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't think you did. But youi really shouldn't have to take my word for it. Meanwhile, I have contacted TIME magazine and asked them how to generate a "Permalink" 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry guys, but as that article is likely still in copyright, pasting it here in its entirety is not really a good idea. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I'm still waiting for TIME to get back to me about the permalink. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Note

Regarding what you added to and subsequently removed from my talk page. No matter how strongly I disagreed with someone on this project - and heaven knows that's happened a few times over the last decade - I would never even consider sharing the contents of a private email they sent me (barring something illegal that required intervention) with a third party, let alone their email address, as that would be grossly unethical. So don't worry about that. — Scott • talk 19:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Thank you very much for donating 2 QPQs, and doing such a brilliant job of reviewing DYK nominations! Best, Matty.007 19:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Luidia ciliaris, aka L. maculata

Oh good, glad my hunch was right on that. I actually saw an image of L. macularis this morning and thought it looked about right, but we definitely needed the expert there. I've changed the text and the category on Commons but have forgotten how to get the file renamed there, I recall asking an admin to do such a thing years ago but the help doesn't lead anywhere useful. Let me know the procedure! All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Tripedalia cystophora

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Dioithona oculata

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	For putting up with an incredible amount of criticism and bullying... I recognize the overall good intention and hard work you've put into wikipedia even if others don't.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. And there is a conspiracy against me as well, but fortunately there are plenty of decent people on Wikipedia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Poultry

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Aleurodicus dispersus

Hello. I'm reviewing the nomination; although I have to log off now and get back to work (!), I have spotted one possible problem which should be easy to resolve. I will resume the review in a few hours. Cheers, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 13:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

While I was preparing the review comments which I am adding now, another editor has added some criticism of the writing style. Although I am going to add comments to the effect that the facts, date of creation, refs etc. are fine, I'll need to wait for your response to those other comments. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 20:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi again. I've now responded to each of the bullet-point comments that were added to the review. Essentially I am happy with all aspects of this DYK as it stands, and seek no more than a couple of optional rewordings, but I wish to leave it open for responses before finalising the review. Best, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 12:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Me again. Admittedly, it's not quite how I expected the review to pan out! Following the recent round of responses, I have discovered and read your recent Editor Review, so I now have some idea of the background to this. I have summarised what I believe are the remaining quibbles, none of which should need more than some minor tweaks from you. If these still do not satisfy the IP, I will have to bring in others to take a look – I noticed at the Editor Review you mentioned this DYK nom to Casliber, who may be able to help – but hopefully that won't be needed. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 18:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I will make the suggested changes so that hopefully the DYK review can be completed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK problems with Meldon Viaduct

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Another_dud_DYK Andy Dingley (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Hildesheim Cathedral

I found several sources (besides the books used for the German article), please check, a different hook now because the other will go to a different article, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry...

...Cwmhiraeth, I don't think I have either the expertise or the attention span for that lengthy document, at least not currently: I'm at the end of a semester, and can't really focus on something that big. My apologies, Drmies (talk) 01:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. Thanks for considering it anyway. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay this is what I'd do if I were you. Bit like what I said here. Just close it with a comment that you'll do something along the lines of what I and JohnCD have said - i.e. take care, prioritise fixing old ones and make generous use of any peer review or seeking second opinions. I've suggested some sort of log, John suggested withdrawing from the wikicup. Anyway, good luck. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I saw the review discussion and was surprised to see you getting such a grilling. I just stopped by to say I appreciate your edits when I come across them, and that you kept a cool head in that discussion. Also: Casliber's suggestion seems sound. Be well. – SJ + 08:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both and indeed both Casliber and JohnCD gave sound advice. Unfortunately the editor review did not examine my strengths and weaknesses but focussed almost entirely on any errors that the reviewers could gleefully find. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 April newsletter

Round 3 of the 2014 WikiCup has just begun; 32 competitors remain. Pool G's Adam Cuerden (submissions) was Round 2's highest scorer, with a large number of featured picture credits. In March/April, he restored star charts from Urania's Mirror, lithographs of various warships (such as SMS Gefion) and assorted other historical media. Second overall was Pool E's Godot13 (submissions), whose featured list Silver certificate (United States) contains dozens of scans of banknotes recently promoted to featured picture status. Third was Pool G's ChrisGualtieri (submissions) who has produced a large number of good articles, many, including Falkner Island, on Connecticut-related topics. Other successful participants included Cliftonian (submissions), who saw three articles (including the top-importance Ian Smith) through featured article candidacies, and Caponer (submissions), who saw three lists (including the beautifully-illustrated list of plantations in West Virginia) through featured list candidacies. High-importance good articles promoted this round include narwhal from Reid,iain james (submissions), tiger from Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and The Lion King from Igordebraga (submissions). We also saw our first featured topic points of the competition, awarded to Czar (submissions) and Red Phoenix (submissions) for their work on the Sega Genesis topic. No points have been claimed so far for good topics or featured portals.

192 was our lowest qualifying score, again showing that this WikiCup is the most competitive ever. In previous years, 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) or 100 (2010) secured a place in Round 3. Pool H was the strongest performer, with all but one of its members advancing, while only the two highest scorers in Pools G and F advanced. At the end of June, 16 users will advance into the semi-finals. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 17:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Editor review/Cwmhiraeth

I don't know whether you have seen this, but it looks as if, despite appearances, you are not on trial, and it's for you to close the review, good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts on my behalf. I think the statement in my editor review by JohnCD is fair comment and I will close the review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Good luck to you. Here's to better paraphrasing. Do voice out again if you're targeted again on-site. starship.paint "YES!" 12:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I will. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Aleurodicus dispersus

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Your request

Hello Cwmhiraeth,

While I was in the midst of reading and absorbing the ANI thread and your editor review, I noticed that you closed the latter discussion. I have replied to your request on my talk page, and I am very sorry at what you've gone through and also that I could not have been of immediate assistance. My offer of some informal suggestions is open to you, although I certainly understand if you wish to move on. Please take care. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

My Bad

Please be more careful in supporting DYKs and please check the sources for the information to confirm they are accurate. You supported Template:Did you know nominations/Beautiful Nuthatch. You added a source that didn't make any sense given the statement and stated "[t]he several facts in the hook are well-sourced", but forgot to note that the range was not sourced by any measurement AT ALL. Not only that, but the range is inaccurate and purely original synthesis and isn't even supported by the actual map in the article. I don't even know bird articles, but this should have been really obvious. Looks like Birdlife screwed up somehow and ran with an issue, but this is more complex and I apologize for the error on my part. Somehow the webpage loaded incorrectly blocking my ctrl-f search and read through of the relevant claim. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Birdlife International has the range at 376,000 sq km and I have added that fact to the article. I think that the citation I previously added to the article does cover the statement to which it refers. Try searching for the word "rare" in the source and you will find it in most of the country accounts. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

It is rare, I'm not disputing that. The actual source from which the content and in-article map does not support 376,000 sq km. Considering that the bulk of the "range" is where the article, by very definition, would not be found - this is an obvious issue. Even more so, the Birdlife map is grossly invalid whereas File:Sitta_formosa_distribution.png is more accurate. The data does not support a vast connected swath of China's Yunnan province. I could see a spot around Puer, but not this mess. The whole fact the points are treated as "total area" are indicative of a major problem. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Birdlife International is THE authority on birds. If it states that the range is 367,000 sq km you should accept it. Of course stating such an estimate of range for a rare bird is fraught with error. The IUCN seems to accept and use Birdlife International data. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Its clearly not 367,000 square kilometers and its a compounding of errors from the Harrap, Simon (1996) source. First of all, the map includes a vast triangular segment derived from the 1996 map. Isolated populations here and there should not have vast connecting areas. You should instantly note the disparity in size and not blindly repeat obvious errors. You had two big contradictory sources and parroted it - not even the French article includes that obvious error. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Look here! All I was trying to do was supply a source for the statement made in the DYK hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The French article also has it... and it seems much of the paragraph came from a slight modification of Google Translate. I'm a bit worried with DYK getting the bad rep because of the hoaxes and other issues making its way through. The last hoaxer messed up one of my articles and no one could tell a mile away that the Chihiro number was fake. Here we have an obvious error that doesn't match a source in the article and its compounded... Wikipedia is not supposed to be blindly repeating stuff. I don't want to be mean to you, but we had another big error go out when it shouldn't have. Birdlife makes errors, many sources make errors - heck I correct a bunch of them all the time and don't make a fuss about it, but such a disparity is hard to ignore when its right there in the article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

As you say, DYK is having a difficult time, and at the moment, I am very much on the defensive. But I don't agree with you about the range. Precise ranges are not always known, especially for rare birds, maps may not be accurately drawn, birds may expand or contract their breeding range etc. I think you should accept the Birdlife International figure as reliably sourced even if you dispute it. I have been told that it is original research to state anything not in a reliable source, and interpreting maps would be included in that I think. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• Seems some people are being mean to you - I mean no offense and don't want to be rude. Its not your error after all and you did make a good-faith shot at it. I've been looking into the bio articles and want to write some, but I was stunned by what I saw. Let's not add fuel to the critics fire - Birdlife should be a bit more careful in not connecting areas from scattered and isolated populations to arrive at that range. They do take corrections, though. Oh and no hard feelings... you are having a bit of a rough time, but you are improving and so should we all. Being a scholar is not easy, but you have your heart in the right place. Just don't let them get you down. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: Asking the bird expert for his views on Birdlife International and the range issues you are raising. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

"Bird expert" as in "poison chalice". Firstly, I don't blame Cwm at all for the edit, IUCN/BirdLife are normally seen as RS sources (and are standard for conservation status), and even if she had had access to Harrap she would have found essentially the same map. As you realise, she has been getting some nasty treatment recently, but here she has just followed what appears to be an RS source.

Most IUCN maps are pretty similar to other sources, but occasionally they fail. In this case, I don't think they can be blamed either, since they have followed what should be a definitive source. I think there is a genuine issue with a species that is poorly known, but theoretically has a large range. Invisible Rail is shown on most maps as occupying the whole of Halmahera, (also happens with other island endemics) whereas recent records are actually from a restricted area. Conversely, IUCN shows Eurasian Nightjar as having a few point records in West Africa, whereas most other sources block in the area, reasonable for a species that is both nocturnal and silent in winter.

I think that how this nuthatch should be mapped is a separate argument, but in this case Cwm followed IUCN, who followed Harrap, who created a map according to criteria that may not have been the best choice. Her actions were perfectly reasonable, and although I hesitate to speak for Harrap, presumably he could just his choice of mapping.

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Mmm, true, in looking at it closely, the triangulation and connecting seems to have been part of the issue because it includes areas were it should not be found. A carefully drawn map is always something to be desired and I am seeing this in some of my research for an upcoming article. When I seen it I looked it up an noted the disparity because of the sheer size. Its not really her fault or the person who put it up, but the estimates would lead to 1 bird per 25 square km... and that's being positive. Sorta fails the logic check. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• Not sure if the issue is related, but there is sometimes errors in how IUCN maps are displayed, which lead to some mistakes when I was making a range map.[2] When I refreshed the page in question, it showed a different, much larger range.[3] So well, always double check range maps, apparently. FunkMonk (talk) 11:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah good point. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• More complex... see above amendment. This issue is something that is clearly not your (or any other Wikipedians) fault. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Slow pace on the tutoring

I agree that my tutoring you is slow-paced, in the sense that I don't do very much of it each day. However I wanted to explain that I find that I have to do it in small bursts, as it is surprisingly difficult to do. This is because I do want to be fair and I want to be encouraging, but at the same time I need to be tough and meticulous about any of the habits you have in extracting information that might be likely to introduce errors. I also believe that I have to try to explain everything that I am commenting about in detail, so it is quite clear, and not likely to be misinterpreted. I am glad you have found most of what I have told you so far to be helpful, however my greatest pleasure would come from seeing that the way you extract information from sources has changed for the better. Those of us who are scientists have been trained to be exceedingly meticulous about what we say in a written article or paper, and how exactly we say it. When you write WP articles on science topics, honestly you need to be equally meticulous and cautious. In that respect, I am disappointed to hear that you are persevering with the WikiCup, as I think being involved in that competition will not give you enough spare time to consolidate what you may have learned about refining your techniques in extracting information and building content. I felt I should put these various comments of mine down in writing here so they would be "on the record" in case anyone wishes to refer to them in the future. Invertzoo (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for what you say. I am benefiting from your tuition and hope that I am raising the standard of what I am doing by being more meticulous, and I do not think that competing in the WikiCup conflicts with this. What you are asking is for me to give up a considerable objective in my life because you believe it detracts from the quality of my editing. You may not understand how the scoring of the WikiCup works. There are five two-month rounds, at the end of each of which the score gets set back to zero. In any round, I only need to score sufficient points to proceed to the next round. In the earlier rounds this is of no difficulty and I only need to increase my WikiCup related activity in the fourth and fifth rounds, and I do this chiefly through the choice of articles that I work on rather than through their number or quality. (This is not strictly true as in round 5 last year I did increase the number of DYKs I did considerably but I have determined not to do that this year.) I choose articles with large numbers of bonus points in order to gain me points. For example the article Sea, which I expanded in collaboration with Chiswick Chap, gained me almost 1000 points in total last year, 700 in the final round. Nor do I think that the criticisms levied at that article by SnowmanRadio, at FAC and my editor review, were fully justified as they mostly demonstrated his dogged determination, seen also in other contexts, than errors and omissions in the article itself. Now the "Stub contest" is another matter. I might not take part in that if another was held shortly, because it does encourage slipshod work with its objective of trying to expand a large number of stubs in a limited time. So no, I do not intend to withdraw from the WikiCup at this time, and the events of the last few months have made me more determined than ever to succeed in the face of adversity, but I will try not to compromise standards in any way. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I wanted to make it clear that I myself have never directly "asked you" to give up the WikiCup. I was, however, hoping you might decide to do that of your own accord, so that for six months or so you could concentrate on developing more meticulous technique. If you think you can continue to concentrate on improving your approach to source research, so that you can create articles or expand articles without including a large number of small but significant errors and misleading statements, then good. But it seems that this type of error is almost impossible for you to spot once it is made, and it also seems that it is extremely hard for you to avoid making this type of error in the first place, especially in science articles where there is no scope for making your own interpretations around the stated source facts. Indeed, part of the problem is that it is not always easy for other editors to spot this kind of error, unless they are experts in that particular subject area, or unless they are prepared to very carefully compare your text with statements in the sources. As I have said before, if you were not nearly as prolific, this would not be as much of a problem. But you are very prolific, and have been for a long while, and because of this it seems there are not enough expert people to meticulously check every article you work on. If you could eliminate almost all of the misleading factoids that accidentally end up appearing in your articles, then you would be one of the best editors we have here on Wikipedia, not only very prolific but very accurate. Invertzoo (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you could indicate on my userspace pages where we have been working, to which errors you are referring, because some of the changes have been more of style than substance. I think it is more difficult to spot one's own errors than someone else's, but I am trying to be as careful as I can. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Good for you Cwmhiraeth. Of course the ideal thing is to prevent errors before they happen, since they seem to crop up during the process of extracting the information from the sources. Your interpretations of what a source is saying are sometimes a bit mistaken or too over-reaching; it is often that sort of error. I believe all of the main things I spotted I have also written about on the talk pages of the drafts. There may possibly be some items in there that you feel are stylistic, but that I feel are content-related, like the octopus digging into the substrate for example. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 00:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I arrived at this page today to inform User Cwm of what looks like an error she made in the extraction of information from the Encyclopaedia Britannica for the Anatomy article in 2013, which might be helpful in User Cwm's current drive to improve her editing. I think that this error could have been avoided by reading more about tissue stains in histology or asking someone with the relevant knowledge of the basic facts to review the text. I would say that this error is very noticeable to anyone that has studied tissue sections with light microscopy. My recollection is that stains can colour both cells and connective tissues as well as anything else that happens to be in the tissue section. I should add that I have also listed a number of other errors that User Cwm's put in the anatomy article in her recent editor review. The nature of some of the errors in the "Anatomy" article appear to me to be somewhat similar to some of the the errors that I found in the "Sea" article at GA level and in-the-round they could come across to me an individual writing about science that the individual does not fully understand. I have not looked at this talk page for a long time, but I happened to notice that I featured in the discussion above. Snowman (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I hope you were not offended, but I think "dogged determination" describes you rather well. If I hadn't closed my editor review, I daresay you would still be pointing out my errors there. :-) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I would not make a comment on your "dogged determination" point at this juncture. However, I am amazed that you do not share my opinion that the basic errors that you put in the Sea article do not represent serious writing issues. I am puzzled why you have not withdrawn from the WikiCup considering the list of historical writing errors that you admitted to at the end of your editor review. Snowman (talk) 20:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

EditorReviewArchiver: Automatic processing of your editor review

This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 12 May 2014 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding <!--noautoarchive--> to the review page will prevent further automated actions. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

See these bots? They grind exceedingly small. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I guess the review will get archived eventually. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Anna Strong

Thanks for your quick review. I accepted the alternate hook with some comment and blamed the spell checker for telling me to take out the second l from signalled on the template page. Donner60 (talk) 06:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Anatomy article expansion from Encyclopaedia Britannia

Re; "Staining techniques using artificial dyes were established to help distinguish between different types of cell", which was added to the Anatomy article by your edit of 14 Oct 2013. The in-line ref gives EB as the source, which says "tissues", and I note that you changed this to imply "cells" only. I have changed the Wiki article to say "tissues" today. I would tend to think that the EB is rather brief and that a better source might be useful. Any comments? Snowman (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Please carry on and make what alterations you think fit. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the article was a joint nomination for GA, but that is not entirely clear on the articles talk page. I could interpret your reply to mean that you have abdicated from any responsibility that you might have for the quality of the article in being one of the the articles nominators to GA level. Snowman (talk) 19:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

It was an article in great need of attention as you can see here. I was more interested in the empty animal anatomy sections. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I have looked at the article as it was back in 2013. I note that one of the banners says; "This article needs attention from an expert in Biology. (November 2011)". Snowman (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Echidna catenata may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Florida and the Bahamas to the Antilles and Brazil. It is also reported from the eastern Atlantic (Cape Verde and Ascension Island} and some southern Atlantic islands. It is found on reefs and rocky shores at depths of less than {{

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Precious again

wildlife
Thank you for raising our awareness for wildlife, plants and animals that we would overlook, supplying not only great articles but also inventive and imaginative news about them, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were the 120th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

In view of the recent criticism of what I do, I don't think I deserve it, but thank you anyway. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I found everything still true, read it again - great consistency ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

ps: thank you also for a thorough and helpful review of today's church, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Your editor review

I have never interacted with you and I don't think we have ever edited the same articles. Regardless, I felt like commending you on garnering such a huge community response on your editor review, even if not all of it was constructive. I've seen a ton of those things sit for months with nobody commenting at all; in fact, it's the main reason why I never tried to get an editor review on myself. So, hey...people obviously notice you and the work you do, and that's definitely a good thing. Keep on doing what you do...for science! MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. My editor review came about as a result of my making a complaint on An/I that I was being harassed. It developed into a battleground between those who searched for and found errors in articles I had worked on and those who were overall satisfied with my editing. It was not a pleasant experience. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

A lot of these things aren't while they're happening. I've been dragged to ANI quite a few times. It consumed my editing time and caused a lot of suspicion about my edits. But in the end, with all the stress of logging in each day and wondering what personal attacks I would read which were going untouched by admins, eventually people took notice. In almost all cases, the aggressors were socks or people not here to help the encyclopedia and all the scrutiny boomeranged.

I don't know the details of your case, but often the extra attention causes the community to realize what is really happening and to recognize excellence. You've contributed a lot to scientific articles, an area for which Wikipedia is recognized as being on par with any formal printed encyclopedia. Let the haters hate, but the community at large tends to eventually recognize who is improving Wikipedia and who just wants a soapbox. I certainly hope things have smoothed out for you now. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Things seem to have settled down now and I hope that is the end of the matter. There is a suggestion at the editor review page that people seeking a review should themselves review another editor's work and I can see there is a backlog of people seeking an editor review. However, my experience is really only in creating content and other people operate in other areas of Wikipedia and sought advice on whether they should seek to become admins etc and I felt I lacked expertise and had nothing much to offer. Thank you for your comments. Cheers. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Crocodylus novaeguineae

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Crocodylus novaeguineae 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 FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Gregarious slender salamander

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Crocodylus novaeguineae

The article Crocodylus novaeguineae you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Crocodylus novaeguineae 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 FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Bivalve, amphipod, etc

Hello again Cwmhiraeth. I trust I have been helpful to you over the past couple of weeks in trying to explain how to extract info from sources without accidentally changing certain aspects of what is being said. Yes I see the new amphipod article, and I quickly read through it. It looks like a really interesting topic. I have not yet tried to compare the info with that in the sources, but if I get more time later I will try to do at least some of that. Hope you are feeling OK, Invertzoo (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Allobates femoralis

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Northern birch mouse

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Lampropeltis mexicana

v/r - TP 18:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC) 18:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Haplochromis vonlinnei, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Morphology (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

"I was thinking of stopping this unproductive discussion..."

Hi Cwmhiraeth, your initial instinct appears to have been correct: the conversation you're having with Fram is unproductive and is unlikely to be of benefit to either of you, given the adversarial tone being adopted. I understand you may be feeling bruised by some of the commentary about your article-writing, but this doesn't appear to be a good way of dealing with that. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I have already stopped the conversation. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Grey red-backed vole

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Malacostraca, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Nauplius and Marsupium (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Echidna catenata

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Fay Crocker

I responded to you here. What you asked for should already be done, unless I missed something. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Squilla empusa

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Cape mountain toad

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Sooty gull

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Starfish

Do you really think that the Starfish article should refer to blood or blood vessels? I edited the article because I'm in discussion with a creationist who used the article's references to blood in order to attempt to claim that starfish have blood? I don't have a copy of the Ruppert et al, 2004 so I don't know what it says but I don't see why the article should confuse people by using the term blood when it isn't blood. There are plenty of other sources which could be cited which refer to the circulatory system without using terms like blood or blood vessels. If you could, please fix the article so that it doesn't cause this confusion. Thank you. 87.81.244.252 (talk) 22:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)