User talk:Chiswick Chap/TalkArchive2014

Crocodilia FA

Crocodilia has been promoted! Thanks for your help. I couldn't have gotten it through this quick without you guy's help. LittleJerry (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Well done! And many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Multi-spectral camouflage

I have a copy that I'd started working on at User:Sasuke Sarutobi/Multi-spectral camouflage, but it fell by the wayside. I'd greatly appreciate any comments, as I'm looking to clear out my article incubators before starting anything new. Thank you. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 16:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, the Marder image is certainly worth using, and any new refs that are about MSC (most seem to be in the article already). The general background on camouflage and infra-red probably isn't worth using as the articles on those things are I'd guess sufficient now. The table might be worth taking a little further - what is needed, I guess, is not a comparison of wavelengths alone (as for the IR article) but a column on examples of camouflage techniques (eg paint) and applications (eg tanks) that work at each wavelength, don't you think? With refs, if possible... Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Trying again

I've decided to try again to make Cucurbita as good as we can. I'll start by going back over the peer review. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thank you again for your long support and superb guidance. Best wishes to you on the New Year. HalfGig talk 13:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll watch the page for developments. Maybe I'll see somewhere I can be useful. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Crystal Palace Dinosaurs

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Crystal Palace Dinosaurs 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 Rosiestep -- Rosiestep (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Chiswick Chap. I'm done adding suggestions. There aren't any real problems with the article. It should pass easily enough after a few issues are addressed. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rosiestep. Thanks so much. I'll get to it as soon as I can. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I think I've now covered everything; feel free to tweak the paragraphs on the beasts now they no longer have listlike names and colons. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Good job; it meets GA criteria; I've passed it. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Crystal Palace Dinosaurs

The article Crystal Palace Dinosaurs you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Crystal Palace Dinosaurs for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Rosiestep -- Rosiestep (talk) 02:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow-up. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Help with WikiCommons?

Not sure if you can help us or not but we need to know where there is info on uploading photos of books that you have published? This discussion page has been closed! [1] Spiritdejoie (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hallo, I suspected this might happen. Basically, Wikipedia and Commons, though they have different rules, are both bound by copyright, which limits what can be published. The cover of a book, CD, or DVD, for instance, is the copyright of the publisher (and often of the artist involved too). Even if I have bought a book and I take a photograph of its cover, while the photo is mine, the cover image is not, and I can't put the photo on Commons. In the special case where you are the publisher, I think you have to raise a ticket to declare, verifiably, that you are happy to pass the image irrevocably to Commons. To do this, go to Open-source Ticket Request System and read the instructions carefully -- I think you need the Wikipedia:Contact us - Licensing page, and you can send in your photo "along with a statement that you own the copyright on it and an agreement to release it under a free license", using the Wikipedia:Declaration of consent form. It sounds a hassle but is not specially complicated. Basically, a team of specialist volunteers read and check your request, once they get through their queue of work, and if they are satisfied you are the publisher, they'll clear your request; they might need to ask you for proof of identify for this purpose. Hope this helps, all the best -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Crocodilia

This is a note to let the main editors of Crocodilia know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on January 27, 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 all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 27, 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:

Crocodilia is an order of large, predatory, semi-aquatic reptiles. They appeared in the Late Cretaceous, and include true crocodiles, alligators, caimans, and gharials. Solidly built animals, they have long flattened snouts, eyes, ears, and nostrils at the top of the head and laterally compressed tails. Their skin is thick and covered in scales; they have conical teeth and a powerful bite. They swim well and can move quite rapidly on land. They are found mainly in lowlands in the tropics, but alligators are also found in the United States (American alligator pictured) and China. They are largely carnivorous; some specialise on fish while others have generalised diets. They are typically solitary and territorial. In some species, females care for their young. Eight species have attacked humans, the largest number of attacks being by the Nile crocodile. Humans threaten crocodilian populations through hunting and habitat destruction, but farming has reduced unlawful trading in wild skins. They have appeared in art since at least Ancient Egypt. Tales of crocodile tears date to the 9th century, repeated by Sir John Mandeville in 1400 and William Shakespeare. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with the ACIM article, a question for you over there.

Hi CC, Thank you so much for your most generous help over at the ACIM article. I did have one question for you over there.... It's at: Assumptions about Schucman's publishing wishes. If you get a chance, your input on this question would be most appreciated. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Whitley Castle

Thank you for your note about Whitley Castle. I am a newcomer to editing Wikipedia and still finding my way around. Your note has encouraged me. Ashley Columbus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashley Columbus (talk • contribs) 18:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. You can always ask for help at the 'teahouse', or from other editors, most of whom are happy to help out. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Salamander

I see you are also visiting salamander evolution. There are currently three cladograms in the article which all predate my involvement. Underneath are four references with cryptic A, B and C designations with no indication of what these refer to or which cladogram is sourced from where. What I have been writing on salamander evolution has largely been taken from the Darren Naish Scientific American blog and agrees pretty well with the first large cladogram. What if I remove the other two for simplicity sake? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh I see, yes, it's more of a mess than it seems at first sight. If we choose just the first one and update it a bit from Naish that would give us a 2013 view. I can see to it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

That would be great. Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Looking back at the history of Salamander I see that you did quite a lot more work on the article than I realised at the time. Thank you for your help. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Carl Michael Bellman Comment

Hello! I am truly interested in your thoughts on this, as I am just now learning about Carl Michael Bellman: Do you think his entry on the List of pen names is perhaps erroneous and should be removed? "Fredman" was not his pen name, correct? If you agree, please let me know, as that would be fine with me; I am doing cleanup on the list now. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that every entry on the list of pen names should be cited to a reliable source. Fredman was an important character, a watchmaker in Bellman's cast of song characters. If he used it, a citation should be easy to find. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll remove him from the list then, thanks for your knowledge, and yes, the List of pen names article needs someone to add RS. I happened across it and decided to copy edit it, which was a tremendously difficult job itself, but I haven't committed to researching RS for it. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Sounds right to me. Thanks for your efforts, it still amazes me how people slot into such a variety of different roles here, all for no pay! All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Point

Why mesopotamia astrology is dated as first? When none of the sources regarded them to be that old either. You should provide the source if you know. BTW, its India who has probably the oldest making of Astrology, dating back to 2500 BCE easily. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou. I actually resisted the GA reviewer's suggestion to remove all citations from the lead, on the grounds that readers would challenge the lead whatever the text said... so I do feel somewhat vindicated. The article's body already gives dates for Mesopotamian (inc. Babylonian) astrology. On Indian astrology, we know that it is derived from 'Western' astrology, so its age cannot be 2500 BCE; of course, if you know of scholarly sources that contradict this received understanding, feel free to supply them. I'll consider whether the lead should be even more fully cited - this is unusual, but of course the topic does require special measures, so it's worth thinking about. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Wasn't actually derived. Only one source pushes that it was influenced by the greek astrology, but that's it, doesn't deny that the astrology existed much before at all. These [2], [3], [4], are some sources, dating to 2000 - 3100 BCE. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

We can't edit the article in real time, this is a long-standing issue and the article's consensus has taken years (I mean it) to build up. I've explained on your talk page why this won't do. Thank you for the sources, I will consider them in due course - I am rather busy today. However at a quick glance, none of these are scholarly sources, and so none of them can be considered RS for the purposes of a pseudoscience article; scholarly papers such as at JSTOR will be required. Thank you for your understanding. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure, explaining on its talk page for now. Writing down sources takes a while.Bladesmulti (talk) 08:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I know, that's why I added only those who I discovered to be academic. You may review the article, some of the estimates given on the page are really, unknown, other than the page itself. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm very glad to hear it. Anything that isn't academic will be removed, and anything that is academic but used to push a point of view without appropriate balance will be edited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

What's wrong with the "misleading" tag. Much of what is referred to pingree is obviously incorrect, since no other scholar talks any misleading like "one can point 360 days with babylonian", given that no babylonian influence ever occurred in whole India, and Vedas are written before any babylonian. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

If you'd let me work I'll add some more sources now. However, Pingree is a reliable source. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Since such point is not really claimed by him to be fact either, he only says "one can point", not that "it's infact" or other terms that he used sometimes. Pingree is reliable, but James R. Lewis is also reliable source, he has been used for this page already, his writings matter as much for this subject. That's how. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, we'll work on it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

My bad, its James R. Lewis, anyways, I explained other 2 sources on the talk page, have a look. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Was thinking. If datings can be removed from the Lead? Just a thought. What you think?(you can reply here, I will be reading) Bladesmulti (talk) 12:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd say not, the lead has been carefully developed, and reviewed formally, and the dates form an integral and important part of its structure. They also announce that the article has been carefully researched, is serious, accurate, international and historical. These reasons are more than enough to decide they should certainly stay. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Consett Iron

George Ainsworth was my great grandfather, so I knew this from family history.

Jamaica55 (talk) 12:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Jamaica55

Thank you for that, and I wish you well, it is a pleasure to study one's family history. However, Wikipedia must rely on verifiable evidence, which means documents that people can consult. These do not have to be online - they can be in a library, but they must be reachable one way or another. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Phyllodiscus

You might be interested in this new article. Its marvellous what animals with no brains can get up to! The main source distinguishes between mimicry and masquerade but I see that wikilinking them both in the article brings the reader to the same destination page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I had a look. People try to distinguish these terms, but even separating mimicry and camouflage is not as easy as it looks. Masquerade is certainly a form of mimicry, and its purpose - as with all Batesian mimicry - is to avoid being recognized as something worth attacking, which means that it can be considered a type of camouflage. Do you know what the source meant by making a difference here? Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The sea anemone mimics another living organism and masquerades as an inanimate object. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting; if only everyone used the words in just one way... Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Losh, Wilson and Bell

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Losh, Wilson and Bell 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 Cirt -- Cirt (talk) 05:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Losh, Wilson and Bell/GA1

Please see some relatively easy notes and issues to address at Talk:Losh, Wilson and Bell/GA1.

Next step will be rest of GA Review after that is dealt with.

Cheers,

— Cirt (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Losh, Wilson and Bell

The article Losh, Wilson and Bell you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Losh, Wilson and Bell for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cirt -- Cirt (talk) 02:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Natural History Shield

I've taken the liberty of awarding this to 3 highly deserving editors: Mgiganteus1, Sasata, and Peter Coxhead. HalfGig talk 15:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

:-} That's brilliant, well done! Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Aurobindo review

Hi Mr Chiswick Chap, Hope you remember you had reviewed article Sri Aurobindo not long before , I have again put it up for review after some corrections please have alook now Shrikanthv (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, good luck with it. The section "Critics" needs to be spell-checked. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Ironmaster

Hi there, no problem with reverting my edit on Ironmaster but I'm mystified by your comment that the link to Abraham Darby I doesn't go where it should. As it so happens, the link in question is superfluous anyway - there is already a link to Abraham Darby I in the previous section (which works fine) so according to WP:OVERLINK the repeated link should be delinked. Please let me know if you have a problem with that. All the Best, ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 20:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It was indeed a mess; C17th link was to #1 so I've made it say so (directly); the 2nd link is to the whole tribe as we've discussed, so it's different, correct, and not overlinking. I've also make the Iron Bridge link direct. Quite a bit of Easter-Egging really. Seems better now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting that out, there's one more (non contentious!) edit that I'm about to make then all should be fine and dandy. Remarkable people, the Darbys. Best, ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 16:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

American anthropology

Hi, appreciate your boldness in moving this content but wonder whether it actually creates a great deal of confusion with the main Anthropology article - which is very American-centric anyway. How best to fix this? Merge? New sections? There's also a disambig page Anthropology (disambiguation) that needs tying in. Cheers! PatHadley (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Urban Agriculture page

Hello! I read your comment regarding the image I uploaded and the need for more content. Last week I added good content for the New York City section. I will have some academic study content soon, regarding recent air and soil quality tests on the farm in the picture. The owners of this farm have been very open to universities preforming studies of various types over the past several years, mainly due to it being the first of this scale. As I am new to Wikipedia, I'd be very thankful for any pointers as to how to gather and post this content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy Sherman (talk • contribs) 16:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Starfish

This is a note to let the main editors of Starfish know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on February 28, 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 all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 28, 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:

There are about 1,500 living species of starfish to be found on the seabed in all the world's oceans, from the tropics to subzero polar waters and from the intertidal zone down to abyssal depths, 6,000 m (20,000 ft) below the surface. Starfish are among the most familiar of marine invertebrates. They typically have a central disc and five arms. The upper surface may be smooth, granular or spiny, and is covered with overlapping plates. Many species are brightly coloured in shades of red or orange, while others are blue, grey or brown. Starfish have tube feet operated by a hydraulic system and a mouth at the centre of the lower surface. They have complex life cycles and can reproduce both sexually and asexually. Most can regenerate damaged parts or lost arms and they can shed arms as a means of defence. Starfish such as the ochre sea star and the reef sea star have become widely known as examples of the keystone species concept in ecology. With their appealing symmetrical shape, starfish are found in literature, legend and popular culture. They are sometimes collected as curios, used in design or as logos, and in some cultures, despite possible toxicity, they are eaten. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks Chiswick for your welcomes to my changing IPs. I seem to be starting a nice collection :)
Best wishes, 109.157.83.88 (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC) [previously 109.158.185.136 (talk), etc]

Well, if you're happy with that, that's ok, but an account is much nicer. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind thought. While editing as a registered user I was wisely advised by an experienced editor that I needed to work out a survival strategy. For better or worse, mine has been to ip... Cheers, 86.173.146.3 (talk) 09:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again. 86.173.146.3 (talk) 10:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Colour me surprised

Good catch here. Actually, I think either spelling is correct in British English, but this is fine. It's a surprisingly undeveloped article for such an important and easily researchable subject. --John (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, yes. The article has probably suffered from its neighbours, Structural coloration and Thin-film interference, which have perhaps, um, interfered with its development. I wondered about a merge but there isn't really a merge target here - S.c. is about the structures and T.f.i. is about the mathematical physics. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of MarketInvoice for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article MarketInvoice is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MarketInvoice until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jojalozzo 04:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hugh B. Cott

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hugh B. Cott 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 Seabuckthorn -- Seabuckthorn (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hugh B. Cott

The article Hugh B. Cott you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hugh B. Cott for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seabuckthorn -- Seabuckthorn (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Chiswick, You're right: a portrait of le mime Séverin doesn't belong in the info-box in the Guirand de Scévola article. I've also asked www.askart.com to rectify the identification. I would suggest instead a photograph of the artist in his atelier, published on the cover of the Revue Illustrée, No. 23, 15 November 1903 (this copy from my collection). I'm not an experienced Wikipedia editor, I confess, so I would appreciate your help with uploading. I could send you a photo of the cover and one of portrait fragment. But how can I send you these? Thanks! Kind regards, Rik Rwa073 (talk) 09:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Other account

Is this[5] you, or an impostor? FunkMonk (talk) 10:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Tiger

Hello, who you like to help me bring Tiger to GA? I think its already well built but needs some cleaning up and maybe more bit of information here and there. I have no intention of submitting it for FAC. LittleJerry (talk) 00:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, it's a modest goal that should be readily achievable. Let's do it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Updated at talk. LittleJerry (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not used to having speedy deletion tags added to newly created pages as happened in a page I wrote in connection with Tiger today. You might be amused by my comment here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid trollaceous types are part of the ecosystem. Think of them as cuckoo bees or parasitic wasps. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The matter turned out to be not so amusing but has now been resolved satisfactorily. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Before I got 'reviewed' status I found I had to be ultra-careful to avoid instant hassle; with it, the problem actually hasn't occurred at all, though clearly it's always possible when someone gets over-vigilant. It's much like an immune system which has to be able to clobber intruders powerfully; there's always a risk of needless allergy, or autoimmune reaction. Very hard to design a system which never fails. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Another update. LittleJerry (talk) 20:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Would you be able to add a little more info on tigers in Indian culture? LittleJerry (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Possibly, but I don't feel there's much of a gap there. I've cut down on the Indian man-eater stuff; if anything, India is over-represented. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you think its ready now? LittleJerry (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I expect it will get through with a bit of chasing about. Have we lost a ref or two from Social Spacing? It looks like it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. For communication, I just removed double reffing.LittleJerry (talk) 23:06, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I see the referencing is being criticised and I will work on this now before the reference numbers mentioned in the review become inaccurate. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:29, 3 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) 01:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the reviewer is going way beyond the GA criteria in this review. For example, I do not consider that the fact that it is a high-importance, much-visited page is relevant to the review. Also, I am reluctant to spend too much time rootling through the references to try to find better sources because I believe the reviewer intends to fail the nomination despite our efforts at improvement. I believe there is an appeal process if it does fail. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree. We can a) repeat our view b) tell him failing us on these grounds would be an appeal (hmm) c) ask for a second opinion d) appeal e) resubmit immediately.

Out of these, I suggest (c) is the nicest. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that (c) would be best, but BigCat is being helpful and we may get there yet. I'm in no hurry. It's a good scorer for the WikiCup and I already have enough points this round! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to be making progress so I expect we can get through this informally. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to C. Lloyd Morgan may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. 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:

• *''[http://www.giffordlectures.org/Browse.asp?PubID=TPEMEV&Cover=TRUE Emergent evolution]]''. (1923). Henry Holt.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carl Michael Bellman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Per Krafft (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) 08:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Chiswick Chap. You have new messages at TheMesquito's talk page.
Message added 17:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TheMesquito (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Batik

Thank you for your comments on batik, your suggestions is greatly appreciated and I will carry it out as soon as possible. However, I do have some questions:

• I suppose the gallery is indeed uncommonly large. However, considering batik patterns are small and intricate and larger image are better to illustrate such patterns, is it still tolerable?

Try adding captions, and we can see.

• I thought up of the same thing when I saw the table of patterns. However, I don't know where to get such pictures without the hassle of copyright.

Try asking one of the museums? Take photos in a museum, in a kraton, in a Batik factory?

• Most famous patterns are readily recognizable when I asked people, but they cannot refer a book or such for citation, they just know. Should I just put in what I know?

No, that's WP:OR.

• Online references explaining the technique of batik are often brief, and I haven't found a desirable medium-length explanation.

There are summaries in some western Batik supplies shops, and surely there are books for enthusiasts also.

Thank you
Alteaven (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC) P.S. by "coffe-bean" pattern did you mean kawung? I don't think it is ever referred to as coffee beans here:)

I expect so, that sounds right. The pattern has brown 'coffee beans' meeting 4 together. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Added captions to the pictures as well as the pronunciation and old spelling of canting. Regarding your suggestion of a table illustrating famous patterns, would it be ok if I put it in a new section called Terminology and Patterns?

Not sure about the title, why not call it 'Patterns'?

This image might be useful.

That image would indeed be useful; it needs to be discussed and explained in the main text. Why not in a 'Terminology' section? Can't see why that belongs with patterns really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

And can you upload the patterns that you have? Alteaven (talk) 08:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll have a look at what may be suitable.

I think the lead image is not very good (it is a dull photo of a museum display with a lot of irrelevant space, and we can't read the text) - the Ketalan woman doing batik might be better, but I wonder if we should not simply have a nice big square of a traditional batik? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the latter would be better. How about this image, it was picture of the week and has frequent global file usage. Alteaven (talk) 11:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it will be better. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, @ Alteaven, here are some images that might be relevant. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• 
  Coffee Bean Batik sarong, Indonesia
• 
  Formal Batik Sarongs worn by guards at Sultan's Parade, Yogyakarta
• 
  Batik sarong worn by female hat seller, Yogkakarta
• 
  Formal Batik Sarong worn by guard with sword at Sultan's Palace,Yogyakarta
• 
  Batik craftswomen in Java handmarking resist on batik tulis cloth with tjantings
• 
  Printing wax-resin resist for Batik with a Tjap, Yogyakarta, 1996
• 
  Selection of Tjap printing blocks with traditional Batik patterns
• 
  Worker printing resist on to Batik cloth with a Tjap
• 
  Batik sarongs in traditional theatre, Solo, Java, 1996

Technique, term, and modern batik

Thank you. I will use it as soon as possible. Meanwhile, I've added the terminology section and add pictures to the table. Are there anything else to improve beside expanding the technique section? Alteaven (talk) 23:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Your question may take some answering, and I doubt that rushing to finish will lead to the best result: you can of course check the different criteria in the GA table for yourself. You can also ask yourself, does this cover all the main aspects of the topic? One point to consider is whether the article is too Java-centric; modern batik is perhaps worldwide, and not based on traditional patterns. I think you'll find that batik is alive and well in Bali today, being used without a tjanting or tjap anywhere in sight, to make dramatic cloth-paintings for art galleries and tourists. It might also be worth having a paragraph or short section on the place of batik within the worldwide family of resist-dyeing, for example the use of thread-wrapping resist in ikat in Java and Nusatenggara, overlapping the geographic range of batik, and of tie-dyeing whole cloths for turbans and other uses in Rajasthan, India.

The article is already visibly better, and it is starting to feel like a well-written candidate. However, there still appear to be some uncited claims, and I suspect the lead needs to be extended (not least to cover recent additions) - it should summarize all the contents of the article in 3-4 paragraphs. I may do some copy-editing later, and will then consider what else may need to be done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh okay, sorry. This is my first time nominating, and I though that the process must be swift. I'll take my time then.

Being timely is good, and necessary; being hasty is not. And (a word to the wise) - it's rarely a good move to start arguing with GA reviewers, few of them like it: at best, it will slow you down.

Apologies if I've made the impression of arguing. Rest assured, I'm just being inquisitive and or likely confused.

And I don't understand, if you're suggesting to include Ikat and such, then it would be off-topic. Ikat is not a subtype of batik and the two are unrelated. Also, it should be noted that the UNESCO recognition is to the batik's technique and pattern. In Indonesia, if a cloth is made with batik technique but with significantly differing pattern from pakem ('general consensus' or 'traditional method which are deemed most suitable', the translation is a bit tricky), it would not be referred as batik. Similarly, a shirt printed with batik patterns is not called batik but batik-patterned. Therefore, the term should refer to cloth made with wax-resist dye method drawn with certain patterns. The term should not refer to wax-resist dyeing in general, because I think it's misleading and there is already a separate article for it, nor to refer thread-wrapping resist because batik is wax-resist. Alteaven (talk) 11:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The term does not refer to all wax-resist dyeing, nor did I say it did. I suggest(ed) you distinguish batik from ikat and tie-dyeing to show that it is different, this should take a short paragraph, with useful wikilinks in there (much better than a 'See also' section). This is not straying off topic, it is defining what the boundary of the topic is by reference to what is just across that boundary. Ikat is not unrelated, it is exactly another 1) traditional, 2) Indonesian, 3) handcrafted 4) cloth-patterning method which differs in just one way from batik - it wraps threads rather than placing resist on whole cloth: it could hardly be more closely related without actually being batik, which it clearly is not.

With no disrespect, I'd like to add that ikat quite differs from batik that 1) Although both are Indonesian, they are made and fostered by different ethnic groups 2) The patterns are different. And as I said previously, the pattern is also a defining trait in traditional batik 3) While the pattern of batik is influenced by many cultures, patterns of ikat are relatively more independent 4) Batik and ikat each are associated with different meanings and consequently they are used in wildly different attires, ceremonies, and ethnic group of Indonesia in their traditional context. I will add what you suggest, but I'd just like to point that out.

I'm more than aware of all that, but I've demonstrated 4 specific points of similarity. The point is not to prove identity - plainly they're different - but to say there is a clear need to explain the boundary.

However I disagree that 'batik' can only be interpreted sensu stricto (sensu UNESCO, perhaps); in practice, people speak of 'modern batik' and I have no doubt you will readily find many references to it. If you want to rename the article to 'UNESCO batik' or 'Batik pakem' that's fine, but if it is to be called 'Batik' then it will not pass GA without discussing the range of non-traditional batiks, including Western ones. You should also describe the tradition and modern batik work of Bali. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Here is a book that names "modern batik": Rita Trefois. Fascinating Batik - Technique and Practice. Page 44. Lulu, 2010. "The utensils described in the previous chapter can also be used for the modern batik technique. Each practitioner can choose additional instruments for drawing and painting or stamping with wax. It is only important to know that the tool is resisting the hot wax. Natural fibres such as cotton, linen, silk and wool are appropriate for batik." Here is a School's Modern Batik club. Here is a modern batik workshop in Bali.

I see, where would you suggest putting the boundary of ikat, and how would it be explained?

What? I just said, ikat lies JUST outside the boundary of batik. If it was any closer it would be batik, which it is not.

Yes I understand. I'm just asking where should I say that ikat is closely related but the not the same and so and so.

Is that what you meant. As I said, create a paragraph or section, you could name it 'Related techniques'.

I'm still rather fazed with this "modern batik". It means that this term can be defined in two ways; as a traditional cloth with certain patterns (where there are certain pakem for the patterns), or as a medium of art where the patterns doesn't matter but rather the technique of using wax, in which modern batik is included. I think this is much like the Indonesian and Malaysian batik controversy, where two rather different things have the same term. In making this article, I was thinking and referring to the former definition. Making a different article for modern batik would be laborious, but equating them would also be misleading. What if it's put in the related technique section? Or should there be an entirely new section? Alteaven (talk) 12:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Up to you, but it needs to be discussed. Wikipedia must describe the world as it is, not as it should be, nor as you would like it to be. If something called batik is made in Bali, Bukit Mertajam and Birmingham, then Wikipedia must say so. The article should not equate trad. and mod. batik, but describe both of them and say clearly how they differ. Some artists in the west certainly use tjantings, by the way, so they are pretty traditional in method, though I think they use wax not wax-resin (so it's safer and has a lower melting point), but they are quite non-traditional in their designs. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Alright. I'm just writing of what I know here in Java, so forgive me if I'm not aware that batik is also used as a medium of art in the west. Do you know other references? Alteaven (talk) 13:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

It really isn't a GA reviewer's job to do this, but if you google search "batik art supplies" (you could choose USA, Canada, UK for example) you will find plenty; also try "modern batik -forum -blog" and similar searches. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I'll talk to you again when I have made the appropriate change and the addition to the article. Again, sorry that this talk became so lengthily and if I asked too much questions. Regards, Alteaven (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem. BTW if your Kawung image is a sample of my photo, could you please put a note to that effect (name the source file) on the Commons image page. It wasn't easy to tell if it was or not. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Done Alteaven (talk) 13:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Still expanding the technique section and add modern batik, but I've been thinking. Is it reasonable to add This page mainly talks about Indonesian batik. For a method of dyeing involving wax with the same name, see wax-resist dyeing in the beginning? I mean, you've said that we should explain the word as it is, and most dictionary defines batik as wax-resist dyeing method but there is already a separate article for it. Alteaven (talk) 10:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, but 'Batik' does not redirect or appear in the title of that article. I think you should accept that *SOME* wax-resist techniques are called batik, in particular when they are applied to whole cloth; wax-resist applied to threads is called ikat or thread-wrapping; other methods include stencilling and screen-printing, but none of these are called batik.

The point is, that when people use a tjap, tjanting, or brush to apply wax, and then dye the cloth, they do call that batik, and indeed both of the first two are done in Java - so the Javanese batik is itself not a single technique, is it?

So, the disambiguation approach is not valid here, sorry. Batik is a selection of 2 or more wax-resist dyeing techniques; I think it is fine that Malaysian and Indian brushed-on wax should also be known as batik, and that they are covered in the Batik article. I hope you will also cover the creation of decorative artworks in Bali (presumably for the tourist trade) using Batik techniques. Hope this is clear. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I see. Then what you said is true, that this article is too Java-centric. I mean the history, patterns, popularity, and terminology all talks about Javanese batik and not general batik. The previous approach, using a culture section where Indonesia, India, etc each would be assigned to, is more appropriate. However if so, then that section of Indonesia would be significantly longer than other batiks because the history etc would be moved there. Is that alright? Alteaven (talk) 12:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

That seems entirely appropriate to me, and the right balance. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Rearranged

There, I'll change the pictures of the gallery later. Regards, Alteaven (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - For the sake of transparency, this discussion would be best linked from the GA nomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Referenced

All referenced now :) Alteaven (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

My first nomination passed! Thank you so much for your help (and patience dealing with my rambles). I'll look forward to make more articles and to look for that book, if time permits. Thank you again! Alteaven (talk) 14:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

only removed it because it is reported in the next sentence

looks like a duplication to me (Monkelese (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The next paragraph. It seems to flow very well like this, the opening paragraph summarizing the key facts, then the details following along. I don't think there's anything in policy which says writing has to be made dull: this article has been very well written, and it carries the reader through the facts exceptionally clearly as it is. Wish I'd penned it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Luidia ciliaris

I have asked Christopher Mah about the identification. He has a splendid blog which this week happens to be about Luidia . Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I am glad that got sorted out quickly and that the species of the second image has been identified as Luidia maculata. I might even write an article about it if I am still around to do so. I don't expect you want to weigh in at my editor review where I have summarised the evidence presented in the review and am asking for independent views? A lot seems to go on behind the scenes in Wikipedia that I knew nothing about. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Glad about the starfish. My view of the entire WP apparatus for investigations, arbitrations, rescindments and palpitations is that it reflects all the weaknesses of human government - politics, dramatic headline lovers, hoodlums who just like a fight, publicity-seekers, red-top tabloid readers and all the rest. The old saying 'if you wrestle with a pig, you'll get dirty' seems as true as ever. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Concerning Pinker's transition from visual cognition to linguistic phenomena

Heya Chiswick. A already provided the link int he GA thread, but figured it couldn't hurt to supply it here as well. This interview is the best source I know of in which Pinker himself addresses the circumstances of his move into language after his early work in visual cognition. Unfortunately, it contains no reference to Brown. Indeed there seem to be a dearth of information on this relationship in those interviews, print or video, that I've come across. His influence is certainly there -- for example, he is cited generously in Pinker's 1979 paper Formal Models of Language Learning, his first sole-author paper, which he has referenced a number of times as somewhat of a formative event in his academic career in several places -- but as for something that speaks very directly to his mentorship ship and how it influenced his academic interests, I don't know of anything just yet that would suite to our purposes. I'll keep looking though. Snow talk 01:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Mm, thanks. Well perhaps that is indeed the crucial reference to use for Brown. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Media file removal

Hi, I submitted a picture of my "Siamese" colored skunk to wikipedia and it was published for some time on the skunk information page. On 03/01/2013 @ 0831 hours, you removed my photo from the skunk page. May I ask WHY you removed that photo? Thank you. Katxox (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC) Katlin

Hallo. I note some degree of mismatch between the friendly-sounding 'Hi' and the somewhat aggressive tone of your message, complete with use of capitals. However I will attempt to recall what this was all those months ago. I think the edit you mean was on 1 March 2013, when I made the edit comment "rm [remove] inappropriate image for desc [description] of wild species". The image was at the top of the "Physical description" section which encyclopedia readers would clearly expect to describe the species as it exists in the wild, so an image of a domesticated variant was certainly inappropriate in that setting. The article does have a "Domestication" section, but there is already an image of a domesticated skunk in that location, no need for a second image there, so instead of moving the image from "Physical description" I removed it. At this distance in time, this seems an appropriate action in the article's context. I am sorry if you are attached to the image; it of course remains on Commons, where you are free to construct a gallery page of skunk images, wild or domesticated; such a page can be linked from a Wikipedia page. With best regards, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, I did not inflict nor intend any aggression as per your interpretation. Yes, the edit was on 03/01/2013 as I stated. I am still confused as to why the image was removed as the skunk search results page does not appear to be a dedicated page to the "wild" skunk. My photo was located under the "Physical description", but nowhere under that "Physical description", as on the entire page, does that description refer to a wild skunk. I do see that there is an image of a "domesticated" skunk under the domestication heading. Could my photo not have been moved to that location instead of being removed from the page entirely? Or have been added to the "Skunks as pets" searchable article? There is no physical difference in a domesticated, black and white, striped skunk, as pictured, as there is in the "wild" born, black and white, striped skunk and is redundant to the photo shown under the skunk main heading. My photo certainly added an interesting, visual presentation for readers interested in learning about skunks. I respectfully request that my photo be restored to the skunk page. Thank you so much for your time. Sincerely, Katxox Katxox (talk) 14:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. As I said, the article already includes a domesticated image (captioned 'A domesticated skunk') next to the domesticated skunk section, so while the article is not exclusively about the animal in the wild that slot is filled - the section is brief and adequately illustrated with one image. Were the section to be longer with a cited account of variant domesticated patterns or something, then there could be room for further images. I am sure that a species description at the head of an article should describe the species as it appears in the wild. The right place for a gallery of images is however on Commons, where there is ample space for good images of animals, and descriptions can be added. Why not take a quick look at Dog (on Commons) to see what can be done - there is a wealth of attractive and well-classified images there, organized into groups, including what are presumably many people's pets. I just tried a search on Skunk there, and it gave me Mephitis mephitis (Skunk) where you can certainly add more images, illustrations, and maps, with new subsections if you want. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Local Nature Reserves

Thanks for your contributions to List of Local Nature Reserves in Greater London. I deleted Ickenham Marshes because, unlike many of the LWT reserves, it is not on the Natural England list at [6]. (There are some errors in the list, but I have not seen any evidence that Ickenham Marshes has been designated.) I have taken more photos today, which I will upload in the next few days, and I think there is only one left to do, Ruislip LNR, which is part of the National Nature Reserve. Is there any chance you could photo this? There is a map at [7]. Thanks if you can help. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding my edit of the Sofia Helin article.

This was not some sort of test. It was ment to correct the placement of Helin's birthplace. In my reading the current sentence states that Helin was born in Hovsta (a "village", my note) in Närke (a "landskap", my note) which in turn is situated in Örebro (a city or municipality, swedish "kommun", my note), i.e. Hovsta is the smallest entity and is situated in the larger entity Närke which in turn is situated in the largest entity Örebro.

This is not correct. Hovsta is situated in (is a part of) Örebro (a city or possibly municipality). Örebro in turn is situated in the "landskap" Närke, a historical way of dividing Sweden. Örebro is also situated in Örebro län (possibly similar to a county), a modern political division of Sweden.

Närke can never be part of Örebro län, these are different ways of dividing Sweden but at the same level.

So the correction I made was based on my reading of the text, as explained earlier, and was made to make sure that the entities are placed in the correct order: Hovsta is situated in Örebro and Örebro is situated in Närke ( or in Örebro län if you prefer).

And how do I know this. I am a Swede. I have lived in Örebro in Närke, Sweden.

Please let me know if I have misunderstood the sentence in the Sofia Helin article.

Best regards P.Å. Jovall — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.230.93.40 (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'm sure you made the edit in good faith, and I presume you are probably correct. However, neither I nor any other reader knows that until you have proved it. Normally this requires written evidence; I have your word that you know and have lived there, but have no way of verifying you really did: this is why Wikipedia asks for written evidence, in principle for every fact or claim added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Natural History (Pliny)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Natural History (Pliny) 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 Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 00:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Natural History (Pliny)

The article Natural History (Pliny) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Natural History (Pliny) 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 Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 13:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Natural History (Pliny) - promoted

Before that relentlessly breezy bot shoves its oar in again, permit me, as a human being, to offer congratulations on the promotion of this fine article. Tim riley talk 13:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I'm working on The Making of the English Landscape now, as a bit of a change. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Violet Trefusis

'In all likelihood' is just a more pompous way of saying 'probably'. If you can define the difference in meaning, I would be interested in hearing it. Valetude (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's so, though at first blush it sounds rather like it. Probably means that there is, in fact, a high probability, say 90% or something, that the event occurred, given rather strongly suggestive evidence in favour. In all likelihood is hard to attach to any given probability, but the way things were, perhaps circumstantially and given the character of the people involved, onlookers just have the feeling that that's what they would have done, and so they're prepared to take a chance on the matter and indicate that outcome 'in all likelihood'. It isn't the same as probably at all. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Tigers, elephants and rhinos

Would like your take on this. LittleJerry (talk) 00:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I think there is no doubt that tigers have attacked wild elephants, if that's the question. This is attested to by all kinds of source that one might expect, from travellers' anecdotes and hunters' tales upwards, including paintings and sculptures indeed. Worker elephants, especially with mahouts and so on on their backs, must look different and especially threatening (and taller, something that easily puts lions off - small boys in Africa hold sticks above their heads to look taller when lions approach), so if tigers even attack those, we can be sure that unadorned elephants form part of their normal prey. We know, by the way, that there are prides of lions in Africa that specialize in elephants; it is quite possible that some (family?) groups of tigers used to specialize similarly, but with today's greatly reduced numbers of both species, such specialism would have to be rare today. I am sorry to hear you have been unwell: I wish you a speedy recovery. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_stalking_and_harassment_by_Snowmanradio

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --LT910001 (talk) 05:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks, and I am glad that the issue is being considered. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, Chiswick Chap. I have been constantly harassed for 15 days straight on a variety of articles and this is very distressing. --LT910001 (talk) 05:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Natural History (Pliny)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Edward Seago

I checked. In his will, he requested that a 1/3 of the paintings IN HIS STUDIO were destroyed, not 1/3 of the paintings in his estate. This was presumably to weed works in progress etc from his heritage. I'm making the correction. SeagoComment (talk • contribs) 07:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh good. I've tidied the article a little. (Remember to sign your postings, ~~~~ to insert your signature.) Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

last FAC

Hello. Would you like to join Cwmhiraeth and me for another collaboration? We're going to tackle rodent. LittleJerry (talk) 00:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I can do that. It is however now the holiday season, and my availability will be rather limited or intermittent for a while. I expect I'll focus on the 'human aspects'. Curious about the word 'last' - are you meaning this will be your final FAC? Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. I expect to get started in early July. I have MacDonald's "Encyclopedia of Mammals" and plan to get "Rodent Societies" and "Biology of Small Mammals". LittleJerry (talk) 13:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, well, it'll be good to work together this time then. I've made a start with a cladogram, and am organizing the Human section. I'll add a few mentions in "beast-fable" (as Tolkien calls it). After that I will be more off than on for a while. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I think when it comes to large diverse groups, cultural references are unnecessary and problematic (see also Primate and Amphibian). We should instead have a conservation/management section. I also think the other sections should be bigger but I know you're still working on them. LittleJerry (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I see the point, but it's certainly debatable: man *does* have literature, folk tales and legends about some of these animals; there are certainly Latin American tales about agoutis and capybaras, as well as Western ones about rats and mice. I shall be away shortly so I expect someone else will write the conservation bit. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the rest of the article should be rewritten and reorganized. When you're ready I could post a game plan suggesting how the article should be organized. For now, work on the human relations section. LittleJerry (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

It certainly needs reorganized; much of what is there is usable, shame to waste it, but when rearranged the gaps will become clear. As I'll not be editing till Thurs at earliest, I suggest you post your game plan when you're ready. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

See talk. LittleJerry (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• I have been working on a draft section on Social behavior. I am not very happy with it. I started with the last paragraph on kin recognition and went on to provide the examples of different forms of social organisation that are now in earlier paragraphs. I think it lacks coherency. What do you think? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: Interesting. I guess I agree with you that it comes across as a series of scattergun examples, leaving the reader with the feeling that they don't know what the general situation in rodents is.

I think therefore that what is needed is a source that boldly generalizes on rodent sociality. The first sentence needs to talk about 'behavior' rather than 'structures' (I never heard that term during 3 years of a biology degree, maybe it's today's jargon), and then go on to discuss the sociality of rodents as a group before moving on to examples. The examples could then be worked in gradually, something along the lines of "Many species of rodent in different families, including the rats, beavers, and ground squirrels, are social. .....(more bold generalizations, citations........ Among the most social of rodents are ground squirrels, which typically form colonies based on female kinship...." Something like that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I guess you are right. I'll have another go. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Hyphenation

Please read and understand WP:HYPHEN before undoing edits that other people make to hyphenation to get articles to conform to Wikipedia's guidelines. WP:HYPHEN says "A hyphen is not used after a standard -ly adverb (a newly available home, a wholly owned subsidiary)". Two such standard -ly adverbs are "rapidly" and "previously"; "leafily" would be another if such a word existed. Chris the speller ^yack 05:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I did read exactly the sections you indicated before replying and undoing, and formed the judgement that the statements there did not mandate the changes you made, though they permit something like them under certain circumstances. Perhaps your personal approach to the implementation of HYPHEN is systematically incorrect, since as written HYPHEN is not unreasonable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

your recent edit

Hi, Chiswick Chap; I noticed a few edits you have made, recently, to Bibliotheca historica... all very good ones too. I thought of disambiguating the Persian Gulf some months ago, however, it would appear that the "Arabian Gulf" mentioned in that article refers to the Red Sea. I do not know this for sure, but am guessing, as the chapter is on North Africa. Do you know specifically? thanks, Kamran the Great (talk) 08:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

No idea, and the thought never crossed my mind, I just followed the source. If you find a source which clarifies the matter, feel free to correct and reference it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

No source, I'm afraid, but pretty sure, considering the article is on North Africa. Cheers, Kamran the Great (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

That's wrong, Book III is perfectly clear that mariners can sail from the Red Sea as far as the Arabian Gulf, and go through the straits (of Hormuz). The places are certainly different. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Referencing Bugguide.net

Hello. Is it good to copy the information on an image of an insect of bugguide.net for a reference on Wikipedia? I did it here: Iris oratoria.Happy1892 (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)Happy1892Happy1892 (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, and hope you're well and doing bugs as usual. I think that bugguide.net is basically a forum, so it's a bit of a doubtful source, might not always be reliable, though I expect people do their best: probably best used for information, and backed up with more reliable sources where possible. You know the score on copying information: you can always use facts as long as you cite them, but you should always put things in your own words. With data like a list of countries, there's obviously not a lot you can do to change the wording, so it's generally ok to copy those, adding your own words wherever you can, and using your own formatting. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Victory Garden

No, the problem is that what you reverted is a file name with a typo; the image itself is called "Where the Nazi's sowed death...". If you change it that way, you get a red link instead of the image itself. If you have no objections I'll revert the page in a moment. Altamel (talk) 04:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Oops. And oh dear, what a filename. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Teleological argument

Hello CC. Sorry to have reverted your edit to this article. We had a short discussion in which those interested agreed that the lead was too long. Please make your argument for lengthening it again on the Talk page. Myrvin (talk) 08:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the very polite notification! I'll go and see if talking seems worthwhile here - I have noticed in other articles that people often imagine that a lead should be very short, rather than 4 paragraphs proportioned to the article's length. In fact, understanding of the lead's role is generally quite limited, so I'll be curious to see what's going on here. Thanks again, Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Averaging faces in Koinophilia article

Hi CC, the illustration of an average face that I think would be suitable for the Koinophilia article can be found on [8]. I am currently corresponding with the author of that website to see whether they would be prepared for that striking illustration to be published on Wikipedia. If I do get permission would you be prepared to upload that image, with suitable acknowledgements etc.? as I am a bit at sea on exactly how this ought to be done? Oggmus (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Finding an illustration of an average face for the Koinophilia article

I have put my latest comments on the koinophilia talk page. Basically I have been unable to contact the person who I think has the perfect illustration to ask whether they would be willing to upload the image on their website on to the Wikimedia Commons Oggmus (talk) 13:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. I expect someone will donate a suitable image soon. Well done for trying. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Asking

What is "ce" means? i saw it when you edited the Oceanography article in the editing description. I'm an indonesian user aiming at improving the same article in indonesian language. So, I visited the Oceanography article a lot. Could you tell me what's that means?

Thnaks a lot. Dreamfayth (talk) 05:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

(a passing page-stalker!) Usually "ce" is used on the wiki as shorthand for copyediting - improving the flow and readability of the text, without changing its meaning. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Classification of rodents

@LittleJerry: Do you or LittleJerry want to do a few paragraphs on the history of rodent classification or shall I? I have just received access to JSTOR which is going to be very useful in general, and this article should be useful in this instance. I don't want to duplicate effort as happened yesterday when I edit conflicted with you on the "Uses" section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: Edit conflicts are unavoidable given the system, and while a bit of a pain they are rarely harmful (only during heated discussions, maybe). But I think we needn't overlap: why don't we collaborate? How say you draft your two/a few paragraphs and then ask me to tweak them? (BTW, Wood 1955 is obviously usable only to indicate how things were seen back in 1955, which I'm sure is what you are intending. I have both JSTOR and Questia.) Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit conflicts matter less if one saves frequently. I tend to save infrequently and in this case wrote a paragraph on use of pelts and made several other changes. I did not expect anyone else to be editing the article at 6am and in the event, rescued the paragraph and abandoned the other changes. I will proceed as you suggest on historic classification. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, travel insomnia in my case. Nice to be home and safe, even if it is pouring with rain. Looking forward to seeing your draft. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

You can find my effort here. The last reference is to Mammal Species of the World which is already cited in the article. Do what you like with it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: Not sure I have much to say, other than that Tullborg either needs a full name or a bluelink, and that Wood 1955 seems to get pretty short shrift! Maybe he didn't say much worth recording. I suggest we go with it and see how it is received. We can always add a bit more later. Oh, and the Simplicidentata seems to have had shifts of meaning; I doubt it was understood as a clade for its first century of usage. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Could anybody post this image to Wikicommons? My computer doesn't seem to be able to. I think the image looks better than the current mole rat one in the article. LittleJerry (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The last remaining task for now is creating a cladogram of rodent groups. I found this article. Reid has offered to do it but I'll let you guys decide. LittleJerry (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

He's welcome if he feels like it, probably he has a tool for the job. I've always done it by hand, pretty tedious. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Could you do the last task? Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• @LittleJerry: Thank you both for your cooperation in bringing Rodent to GA. I had a pleasant morning doing the thing I like doing best on Wikipedia (in this case expanding Silky pocket mouse) but propose to return to the fray and nominate Rodent at FAC. Are you and LittleJerry happy to go ahead jointly with me? Should we invite DrChrissy to join us? Although not as enjoyable as article creation/expansion, I will be happy to do the bulk of the work involved in responding to comments. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, why not. And we should surely get DrChrissy to join in. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay but I don't know how much time I'll have when Fall comes. LittleJerry (talk) 12:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure when "fall" starts but in any event, I have now nominated the article on the selfish premise that the timing suits me. I invited DrChrissy to join us but he declined. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

September 21st? Anyway, I'll help as I can. I'm on the road for a couple of weeks but should be able to pop in at least briefly most days. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

It sounds as if you won't be around much in the next couple of weeks. It has been suggested at FAC that there should be one or two paragraphs on "Rodents in popular culture". I'll have a go at it in my userspace but it is very much more your kind of topic than mine. Please add to/amend what I write if you have the opportunity. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm away. I've given you a thing I wrote a while back on mice/rats; it's hard I think to find anything much else (if Brer Rabbit unfortunately no longer counts: though when he was created I think rabbits were considered rodents...). I expect there are S. American tales of Capybaras and Guinea Pigs but I don't know them. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Please see the FA talk pages. LittleJerry (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, seen. I've no idea whether we should or not, though personally I'd not be inclined to argue; I have little opinion either way, but certainly can't see why the request should be denied: it's not meaningless, though it may be hard to fulfil. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I've blended the bit I wrote with what you wrote and have added the result to the article under the heading "In popular culture". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Historia Plantarum (Theophrastus)

The article Historia Plantarum (Theophrastus) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Historia Plantarum (Theophrastus) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Erachima -- Erachima (talk) 01:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Making of the English Landscape

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Making of the English Landscape 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 Erachima -- Erachima (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Making of the English Landscape

The article The Making of the English Landscape you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:The Making of the English Landscape for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Erachima -- Erachima (talk) 04:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Making of the English Landscape

The article The Making of the English Landscape you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Making of the English Landscape 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 Erachima -- Erachima (talk) 08:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I am now reading Bird migration and remembering why I generally don't review articles about things which weren't made by humans. --erachima talk 08:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's very different. It's a major topic and a pretty good coverage by several editors; I swept up a lot of loose ends. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I'd probably pass it on writing quality. As to the other portions, didn't even look. --erachima talk 12:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

:) Glad to have met you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Rodent

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

COI matter

EEng actually has a COI that should have halted much of his activity on the article. EEng announced that he co-authored the documents the article uses and works with the principal author cited, Macmillan. I disagree that someone who works with the principal source and publishes their own research is capable of adhering to a NPOV when they cast aspersions on the motives of other academics and go so far as to attack another university. For instance, EEng dismisses a peer (and Macmilan endorsed) review of how the tamping iron was recovered and became violent when Macmillan's published book had a very gross error that I highlighted when I personally obtained and read the copy. He acted as if this defining error does not exist and will not entertain a note for readers who've gone through the trouble of actually consulting the source cited. No offense, but the article is a clear C and far from a GA because of neutrality and other issues that remain unresolved. I am almost certain that the matter should be brought up at WP:COIN because it has continued and has run alongside EEng's year-long MOS war with no less than half a dozen different editors, a collection of which is present on the article now. I understand EEng does good work, but being able to work with others is important. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm very sorry to hear this news, and hope it can be resolved peacefully. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I hope it can, I'm not one to be mean to other scholars on here. They are quite rare after all. I hope the article gets to GA, I tend to be of the belief that any article I put a significant amount of time and effort in should be able to reach GA because it is an important subject. It is sorta an esoteric subject, but nonetheless, useful. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is EEng and edit warring. Thank you. —Bgwhite (talk) 07:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. I hope this can be resolved decently as the article is of wide interest. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK for De Materia Medica (Dioscorides)

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC) 12:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Rodent

I am unknowledgeable in the matter of images and their authors/licences etc., and my inclination is to replace images with problems rather than try to solve the problems. Do you have access to the original for your cropped beaver dam image? (I wouldn't want to offend you by just removing it!) Also, Crisco suggests there are too many images. Any thoughts? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

There are plenty of people who can help on Commons licensing, they hang around there a lot so probably best to find one to ask. The beaver dam is on Commons, I have made the link more obvious. I've removed the 3 fossil images from the table as well as the Lord How Fantail (uncertain US copyright, unfortunately), seems a pity but so what. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I've fixed a few more image problems, found an author in the Nordisk Familjebok and translated a few words from German on Commons - image stuff involves many dimensions! Most of the rest are "Fine", ping me again if needed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Could you look at the rodent FA? LittleJerry (talk) 13:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

@LittleJerry, Cwmhiraeth: Done some simple fixes. Given the current comments, especially on the palaeontology, we frankly need a rewrite by someone with a bit of expertise in the field: with a reviewer who knows a fair bit about the group, it is no good grabbing random sources and hoping for the best, that just makes more problems. The only way we can do it ourselves is if we can find a recent review paper (a tour of the field by an expert) and paraphrase the key points from that; I've not seen such a paper, but one may exist somewhere. Maybe we could ask around for such a thing? The reviewer also has a bad feeling about the whole article, I think largely unjustifiably, but we do need to check and replace any old or flaky sources. I don't believe we have to use only recent peer-reviewed papers - undergrad textbooks should be ok if recent and properly sourced themselves (ie they're good 2ndry sources) - but we are being challenged across the board on source quality and we have to address that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

LittleJerry has contacted me by email asking me to remove his name as nominator, which I am reluctant to do as he was the person originally suggesting this FAC. Meanwhile I have completed dealing with Ucucha's comments and asked him to clarify which sources he considers unreliable. So we will see what happens next. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth, ok, I'm not totally surprised. The recent editing has certainly strengthened the article and the sourcing; with scientific articles one has to be suspicious of sources. Old journal papers, general sources and actually just stuff cobbled together by years of random wiki-editing are all risky, to the point where I'd be inclined to start from scratch in any future FAC project. However we have fixed a lot of the issues here, and there's no reason why we shouldn't fix any more that are identified. We could take a proactive approach and check any remaining old or doubtful refs for ourselves, and say we've done so: what do you think about that? The underlying issue is that to most editors, the topic is one of general interest (there's even a pet-shop angle, after all), while to a few people it's an academic and scientific topic. But I think it reads pretty well now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

OK. I'm not so pushed for time now so I suggest that I work through the first 70 sources and leave the remainder to you. I will probably start tomorrow as today I am catching up on things that I have neglected during the stub competition which has now finished. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth, I've gone through my half. Mostly ok; have fixed half-a-dozen small things (missing parameters and such). 73 Hanson looks a bit flaky and it covers about 5 paragraphs. Hm. 94 Encyclopaedia Britannica - well, not ideal. 96 Wood (1955) is clearly only safe for the historical aspect, which is sort of what it's used for, what do you think. Finally, 99 Honeycutt is actually a serious "timetree" (cladogram) suggesting a late Cretaceous date, wow. I'm not sure how controversial that is - I'd guess that it could be mentioned as a view rather than as a fact. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I have done the first 70+, to 78 Foote actually because I've added some more. Now I look more closely, I see there are some missing page numbers which I will now add. The main change I made was to replace the Animal Diversity Web sources which are written by students for students. Otherwise I was impressed how good most of the sources are. As for Anne Hanson, she has a M.S. and Ph.D. in Animal Behavior and has made a study of rats and I would argue in favour of including her. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth, super. I've repeated the Hanson ref for each paragraph, and supported it with Galef 2005, that excellent thing a proper review paper, a highly reliable 2ndry source. I agree about the general level of sourcing, it seems pretty much there to me. barring the EB, of course. And still wondering about Wood. Well done with your Canidae, btw. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I've replied to Mike Rose and removed some overlinks as he requested. That leaves Mike Christie who said he was waiting on Ucucha before doing another pass. @Cwmhiraeth, should we ping him? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I am computerless after a lightning surge. I will not be able to do anything useful till about Thursday. I can't even log on on this computer as it is demanding some sort of keyword password. I am a bell ringer and our church tower was struck by lightning, the old lightning conductor was deemed unsafe and taken down some months ago and before a new one could be put up all sort of paperwork was needed and hadn't been completed at the time of the strike. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Gosh, hope you get it all sorted out. I've left a message for Mike Christie and will try to hold the fort until you're back. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Still computerless but at least I now know my daughter's keyword password. My computer and router are being completely replaced and I am hoping the insurance will cover it. Not much action on the rodent front since my last visit. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: Sympathy. Mike Christie is also snowed under, hopes to get back later this week. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: Mike has now commented, feel free to weigh in, or I can look at it tomorrow. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• BINGO! We got there in the end, but it was a hard slog. Thanks for your cooperation. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: Yay! I'm very pleased we made it. There were moments when I did wonder. Ring out the bells! Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bird migration

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bird migration 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 Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you want to respond to my suggestions at the GA review? As to Tree, we could take it to GA, but I have no spare time before the end of October. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course, I was wondering what had happened, somehow I wasn't automatically pinged. Tree can wait, but it would be satisfying to get it to GA with you. I've replied to your comments. BTW I'm trying to keep an FA contributor sweet, I think he's a bit miffed by being reverted with brief or absent edit comments... let's try to keep everyone happy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I will be delighted to work with you on Tree. On the other point, I agree. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I will round up this GA nomination shortly, meanwhile we have a bit of a setback at the Rodent FAC. I have to go out now so will be unable to respond there till tomorrow. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth I see you're still editing, so you feel there's some hope. We'll need expert help, I think. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I have asked DrChrissy if he can help with the evolution/classification aspects which I think are the most difficult. Having considered Ucucha's comments further, I don't think they are insuperable, just difficult. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth Good work by the team. Do you think he'll get back to us? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Ucucha has not edited for the past week. Opposing our FAC was the last thing he did. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Hi, thanks a lot for taking up the review and corrections in Badrinath Temple. Please accept this small token of appreciation. Ssriram mt (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much! It's really appreciated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for your editing on the monarch butterfly article. It was good, it was right and it was helpful. It only made the article better. I am impressed by your userpage and am flattered that you would take an interest in this article. Best regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  02:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm delighted to hear it. All the best with your editing! Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Monarch Butterfly Migration

Thank you for your attention and contribution to the Monarch butterfly migration article. This is a new article and I am still in the middle of expanding the section Population and migratory study methods. I completely understand why you edited to condense this information at this time. I plan on creating the re-creating the sections in the near future with additional information and citations. I have probably have only added about half the information that I have found. It is quite extensive and highly researched. I am awaiting JSTOR access to help me finish off the article with more journal citiations.   Bfpage |leave a message  00:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

OK. Most of what I did was in fact not condensation but reorganisation and formatting, which I doubt you'll wish to undo. On study methods and similar topics, take care to focus on the results - the effects on understanding of migration - and not on scientific teams and their activities. Far too many articles are full of 'science cruft' of the form "A major study team under professor Magnus Bigfellow spent three years carefully investigating the possible impact of changes in ..." which in fact says sweet nothing about the results that readers need to know. Good luck. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Tree

Having had another look at Tree and seeing how much work you have been doing on it I have had a change of mind, not least because it is such a splendid point-scoring article for the WikiCup. If we nominate it soon for GA it has at least a good chance of being reviewed before the end of October, the end of the last round of the WikiCup. With that in view, I have removed some citation needed tags and propose to expand the Cultivation section. Are you happy with this timescale? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, why not. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I have now replaced the uncited Cultivation section with an Ornamental trees section. Do you think there is any more work needed on the article? When we nominate it for GA, I suggest you make the nomination, because I have several nominations there already. I should still be able to claim WikiCup points for it if it is successful as I have done work on the article during 2014 (not mere copyediting). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth, I think it's ready but for a sentence or so to introduce the 'Art' section. But I can nominate it now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, lets go then. I have added an opening couple of sentences to the art section, but feel free to change them if you think fit. You might not like the source! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth, for some reason there's no mention in the food section of nuts (hazel, almond, walnut, brazil ...) from trees. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth, I've edited the crucial 'Definitions' section and added a diagram. I think this makes the whole article clearer, but would value your opinion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It looks good. I tweaked one sentence and I added an extra reference for the monocots. Do we really need seven sources for one fact in the first paragraph? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I doubt it, and things like that indicate trouble and attract attention. The refs were added a while back. Feel free to prune them as appropriate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bird migration

The article Bird migration you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bird migration 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 Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Monarch butterfly migration

Since there seems to be more interest by others in the editing of this article I would like to move our communications to the talk page if that is okay with you. Regards.   Bfpage |leave a message  11:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Hat's off...

...for your informed and thorough review of language. Plenty of valuable suggestions, including the hints on what might be needed for a possible future FAC. Thank you very much.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

That's very good of you. Tak så mycket. Chiswick Chap (talk)

Re: Astrology and quantum mechanics

I'll add some more reliable sources when I have the time.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 20:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for The Making of the English Landscape

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Materia Medica /external links

As per your comments re search terms in text I added a comment in Talk --Michael Goodyear (talk) 07:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Could you also add the contents of each of Kuhn's two volumes so readers know where to go! --Michael Goodyear (talk) 07:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't have access to the details. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I just assumed that you had read both volumes. I have just spent the day doing so, so I will correct the links (volume II has nothing to do with this work) and set it up as you did the Latin. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Elizabethan and Jacobean melancholia

I'd like to expand the information on melancholia in Elizabethan and Jacobean England. I have Roy Strong's influential 1964 essay from Apollo magazine (and a couple of more recent scholarly studies supporting it), which traces the origin of late Renaissance melancholy to Marsilo Ficino. Strong has a great bit which I'd like to quote: "Ficino transformed what had hitherto been regarded as the most calamitous of all the humours into the mark of genius. Small wonder that eventually the attitudes of melancholy soon became an indispensible adjunct to all those with artistic or intellectual pretentions." I'll add some info on symbolism of melancholy in portraiture. I'd also like to replace the current image in the "Cult" section with the early portrait of John Donne (File:John Donne BBC News.jpg).

I am thinking this info would essentially replace the first paragraph of the "Cult" section as written, which is unsourced. It appears that you've done work on this most recently - do you have any concerns about me making these changes? Thanks. - PKM (talk) 02:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@PKM: this sounds good. The section and article are actually quite well-written but with old-style sourcing (i.e. nobody can tell if the "Further reading" was actually used in the article or not), so go ahead. I made only minor edits, btw. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Done! Thanks. - PKM (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tree

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tree you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 06:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I asked Sainsf if she would take it on. If you would like to continue marking the comments you have dealt with, I propose working on others after 13.00 today so that we can avoid edit conflicts. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: Super. I'll do what I can now, and leave you some to be getting on with! Sainsf has struck out the ones I've sorted. Over to you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

(keeping hands off!) @Cwmhiraeth: Under 'Other uses' I suggest {{further|Resin|Latex|Camphor}}; but I see no reason why we shouldn't lightly overlink here, it's the main place for these topics so it seems silly not to link'em. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

That was very satisfactory. I don't imagine you were thinking of taking the article to FA? In my view GA is a more worthwhile objective than FA. And by the way, I enjoy working with you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I suspect this would be a dog at FA and anyway it's nowhere near ready. I'm glad it's arrived at GA this time around, and I'm looking forward to working with you further too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tree

The article Tree you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Tree for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 04:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Consett Iron Company

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Consett Iron Company 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 CorporateM -- CorporateM (talk) 05:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Bovidae

Hi Chiswick Chap, saw your awesome edits here. I am really irregular these days, so your help is certainly a big push! Let me know what you propose for the expansion of the article in the future. Thanks, Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 08:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. I don't have any big plans for the article, but just thought it needed a 'human' section. There is a large amount of material at Sheep which we could lightly summarize (don't want to be WP:UNDUE); there's more at Cattle; both articles have sections on Religion, and there's Cattle in religion too - we should mention Hinduism for the cow, the monotheistic religions for the sheep, at least. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Rodent FAC

Real life keeps intervening; I have obligations for all of tomorrow night and at least part of tonight, but I should be able to get back to it later this week, if I can't make time tonight. Sorry about the delay. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Deimatic behaviour

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Deimatic behaviour 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 Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Astrology

That was someone promoting Wudong Co., I've blocked him as an advertising only account. Dougweller (talk) 12:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Deimatic behaviour

The article Deimatic behaviour you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Deimatic behaviour 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 Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Symmetry

Hi

You removed my small bit about symmetry (do you remember?) and its been suggested I take the matter up here. The very answers (friendly, polite) seem to emphasise that I was right with my insertion, broadly speaking.

Essentially - and I referenced two mathematicians, one a CERN scientist - I said there is a counter-intuitive aspect to symmetry which should be explained. I agreed that perhaps my comment shouldn't have been at the Introduction, tho' even that could be argued.

I would be happy for an expert to tidy up my contribution.

Wikipedia should not be some arcane on-line journal. It should be like a dictionary, accessible to anyone. If a topic has an apparent paradox, this should be explained.

There's a lot about things like the Higgs boson in the intelligent Press. Changes in symmetry are complex and the term Broken Symmetry gets used. It can be simplified for a lay person and that's what I tried to do. No doubt it could have been done much better but I don't think it should simply have been removed without trace.

I'm assuming you know a lot more about this than I do. Seriously. But that might blind you to the difficulty faced by a lay person. MalcMalc9141 (talk) 22:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. I'm very much alive to the difficulties faced by new editors. I'm glad you've found tea and sympathy at the Tea House; it is one of several ways that make getting started a little easier. However, there is quite a steep hill to climb. In an established article, and especially in its lead, any addition has to be evaluated in the context. The lead in particular exists to summarize the rest of the article: so, it is never the ideal place to add anything new. Of course, everyone seeing an article that doesn't cover something they feel should be included, thinks to add it 'up front', and it is difficult for them to see it removed promptly. The editor(s) seeing the addition, unsupported by any other mention, and very likely uncited, can at once see that it must go: such is the natural order of things in an encyclopedia. Clearly, if you can find suitable references in Reliable Sources, then there will likely be a place for something on some such topic, somewhere in the article, or perhaps in a sub-article -- not everything can be covered in a top-level article, which itself is a summary (or should be) of a family of articles.

If you would like a word of advice, it would be to research the area carefully, prepare a draft wording complete with references, and place that on the article's talk page as a proposed addition. Alternatively, prepare it in your own user space (you can create a sub-page from your user page) and ask editors to check it for you. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Your comment at Talk:Paraphyly

Would you mind moving your comment to a new section? It's a bit lost where you put it and I'm reluctant to reply and start a discussion in the middle of an older section. (I think the first sentence is incomprehensible!) Peter coxhead (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Good idea! Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Consett Iron Company

The article Consett Iron Company you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Consett Iron Company 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. CorporateM (Talk) 16:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for the careful review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Tree

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thank you so much for your work on the rodent article and for contributing to its featured article review process. I am a big fan of rodents and am happy to see them well-represented on Wikipedia. It is not often that Wikipedia articles on a major class of animals gets promoted. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

That's very kind of you. I hope you will feel inspired to take similar subjects through to FA yourself. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Whitley Castle

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Whitley Castle 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 Hchc2009 -- Hchc2009 (talk) 09:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

NB: give me a shout when you've finished with the editing and I'll do the detail of the review. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

@Hchc2009: I've finished for now, so please go ahead. There are more details in Robertson but on the whole they're pretty marginal. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, will do! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

History of anatomy

Hello Chiswick Chap! It has been quite a while since our paths last intersected. Thanks for bringing Anatomy up to GA, our project at WP:ANATOMY is flourishing. If you have time, I have been thinking about creating a sidebar for a series on the History of anatomy, and I've created a template. If you had time, do you think you'd be able to flesh it out a bit? This is just a draft, isn't displayed to users, and nothing is fixed (headings, image, current entries), and I'd value your input. Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Whitley Castle

The article Whitley Castle you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Whitley Castle for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hchc2009 -- Hchc2009 (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Help needed

Somebody has added a large chunk of information to the article Barn owl, probably not realising that it is in the delicate final stages of its FAC. I don't like to just delete the new text but I suppose I could remove it and create a new article on "Color polymorphism in barn owls". What do you suggest? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Panic over. Jimfbleak suggested what I should do. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Math ratings

The B rating for Wikiproject math does not require references; that is reserved for the B+ rating. I added references anyways because I like the article. However, I don't mind adding more references if it is necessary to obtain a consensus on the B rating. I'll add more refs to physics if noone beats me to it.Brirush (talk) 14:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Well I'm astonished that an article in this state can be deemed to be a B, no matter how narrow a point of view a project may take. It does not consist only of maths, since the topic covers symmetry in the real world, as in physics, biology, architecture, so at the least we need to get the article properly cited in those sections. What is missing on the talk page is clearly a better list of other projects that could rate the article from their points of view, given its hybrid nature. In any case, it is definitely not ready for a GA whatever the math project may think of it, so any assertion of B-ness is academic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I've considered what you said, and I'd like to work hard to improve the article. I've created a draft proposal on my sandbox and suggested its use on Talk:Symmetry. I'd appreciate your feedback, as well as others'. The draft would split off symmetry (geometry) into its own article, leaving only a summary, as well as cleaning up alot of the pseudo-physics.Brirush (talk) 13:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks; I've replied on the talk page. I'm willing to support but would like to hear what others think. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi again

Hi. I started editing again yesterday. I made 2 new short articles, started a third, and then User:Sminthopsis84 asked me if I wanted to help get Cucurbita to FA. She and User:CorinneSD are helping. I'd like Sminthopsis84 to get official credit for it. I was wondering if you could help too. I guess some sort of precheck would be warranted. Nice to chat again and hope you can help out. CorinneSD is a very good copyeditor. I suggested she ask Sasata for input on what to look for. Let's coordinate the talk at Talk:Cucurbita. HalfGig talk 13:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@User:HalfGig: Ok, why not, it would be nice to get the article to FA through teamwork, and I'm glad you and Sminthopsis84 are to work on it. Let's go for it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity 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 Spinningspark -- Spinningspark (talk) 14:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Whitley Castle

The article Whitley Castle you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Whitley Castle 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 Hchc2009 -- Hchc2009 (talk) 09:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Whitley Castle, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Principia and Alston. 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) 15:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Precious again

Patterns in nature
Thank you for quality articles, such as Operation Bertram on remembrance Day and Patterns in nature, for article rescue and collaboration, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were the 301st recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thank you so much for your work encouraging Wikipedians, as well as your own articles. I'm wondering whether Operation Bertram could run for FA, what do you think? Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I took a quick look, impressive, could use some more references and pic arrangement with less (better no) squeezing between left and right. What I read (not all) looks like fine factual prose. How about a peer review? - My own little contribution is Da pacem Domine (Pärt), started. We (in Germany) remember on 16 November. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll work on it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources tag...

… is intended to include, very clearly, mis-use of primary rather than secondary sources in the sciences and other areas of scholarship as well. This is explicit in WP policies, and explanatory documents for the sciences and other areas. On this you are clearly mistaken. Signed, a Professor in the sciences, and longtime wikipedia editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.87.100 (talk) 14:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

You may wish to delete this again — I do not look to IP User:Talk pages, so will miss what you write there — but I wanted to say, first TY for your measured response to my pointed challenge to your initial edit. While we may disagree on some level, your response was far more measured, and so time-saving and productive, than many I have encountered here. In particular, I am thankful you saw that there was substantial other work that accompanied the tagging (as there generally is from this editor), and so did not proceed to dispense baby with bath. (I would have said TY for the edit, immediately, but not being in a place where I feel comfortable logging, the automatic mechanisms are not available.) Second, TY for the comment at this IP talk page, which I have deleted, not perniciously, but after reading, and acknowledging here. On the matter of scientific use of primary sources I am clear, experienced, and certain (having fought the good fight for years regarding use of patents, primary sources, reviews versus research publications, etc.) In these discussions, I do not cite specific WPs because in my experience if a person is not persuaded quickly, by statement of concept, they are not likely to submit to a string of WP:THIS and WP:THAT. Thank you for being cordial on your response. In other areas, I have some experience, but am not of the same firm opinion, and so yield to your statements. The only matters for you to consider if we continue to interact there, are, (1) whether tags create specific notices in particular places, which might be useful to the article and community, and (2) whether particular tags might be very important to lay readers. I have, in particular, gone to articles, before recommending them to students for reading. However, after having specific tags reverted, on repeated occasions, by individuals concerned primarily for the appearance of articles, I have simply stopped recommending WP articles to students (rather than have them naively unaware that well attributed content is more reliable that poorly attributed content, and that both are more reliable than unattributed content). Bottom line, I believe it IS important for articles to bear marks of there being general and specific issues, to alert lay readers; for me, appearance means something, but relative to valid content, near to nothing. Accuracy and reliability of information is tantamount, and if we make an article appear more settled than the accuracy of its information deserves, we do (in my opinion) the lay reader a clear disservice. Hence, I add individual line tags in addition to section tags, etc. This is one view, but as I say, I realize I am in a minority — though within WP policy, and within my rights as an editor, I realize I am at the losing end of any "popular" vote on the matter. Hence, as long as appearance matters more than reality here, articles will mislead readers, remain stagnant in quality over long periods, and so your most well informed on subjects will generally not recommend our content. But, this we cannot solve, and so I again TY for cordial receptivity to challenge. Cheers. 71.239.87.100 (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity

The article Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity 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 Spinningspark -- Spinningspark (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

A laughing pumpkin!

	Nice picture
	Had to laugh at your image that you added to Cucurbita. Why did they build it so tall?? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Aw, that's nice. They used to have a regular festival at Kew Gardens; it was revived in 2013, and I guess they wanted it to look impressive. The water of the lily-pond below was specially darkened with dye to make the reflections more striking! All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Definitely appropriate for the Thanksgiving and Christmas seasons! HalfGig talk 15:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. But I think it also celebrates Cucurbita in an editorial-free way. The article is getting to a state where I can't see how I can improve it... Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Right now we're waiting on CorinneSD to finish the copyediting. She's done a great job down through Habitat and Distro. So when she finishes Culinary Uses and below would likely be the time to send it to the featured process. HalfGig talk 15:51, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Rattlesnake as food

Hi! I was interested in how thoroughly you edited my edit, and I'd like to learn, please. I don't know what "rm" and "ce" mean. If you're the watchdog for this page, I think you've done a good job, and I sure didn't mean to add uninteresting info. Can you educate me? Thanks! Abyssopelagic 17:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC) Abyssopelagic

Okay, I understand your abbreviations, and they seem so obvious now. :) That blog entry that you cut was from the Food Network, which I did consider reliable; but you're the old hand and I'm still learning. Thank you very much! Abyssopelagic 21:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC) Abyssopelagic

Cucurbita FA preps

First, a hearty thank you for all your great help on this article. I think there's not much more to do unless we can find medical stuff that can be safely added. I was thinking we wait til the weekend to see if anyone has more pre-nomination improvements, then nominate. I would love for Sminthopsis84 (talk · contribs) to get the credit for this, but I'm not sure if she wants it. I don't have to have the credit either, I just want the article to be as good as it can be. What are your thoughts on all this? HalfGig talk 19:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks all round. There's always the possibility that someone at FA will ask for medical facts and refs to be included. Otherwise we're surely good to go. It has clearly been a team effort and Sminthopsis84 has certainly contributed; your involvement isn't remotely in doubt. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Can people share credit? How many? HalfGig talk 21:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and I don't know, in that order. Apart from competition entries like the Wikicup, I doubt if anyone minds very much. On my own user page, I write (collab) if it was a joint project; some people note "minor" in a similar style. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I ok with you Sminthopsis84, yourself, and myself sharing credit. HalfGig talk 23:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Super. I guess you're well aware that 'credit' means the graunch of pushing the thing through FAC, at least a month of hard work and sometimes sturm und drang into the bargain: we're only half way, you could say. I'm glad S. is in as we may need technical tweaks and journal citations. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Bioluminescence

I wrote an article on a non-bioluminescent cockroach! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: because you thought it shone? Nice! I've added some ancient history, there's tons more but probably rather minor stuff really. Am wondering what to do about chemistry. On the varieties of function, we could just split it like the review paper, Defensive and Offensive, only there's also Courtship ... Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Lets review the varieties of functions section headings when we have found all the examples we want to add. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: The article is much improved; we seem to have said what we wanted (and both temporarily run out of steam?); ideas what to do next? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've got diverted into several bioluminescent blind alleys. I think the article needs a bit of tidying up as various pieces of information have been added without creating a coherent whole, for example in the History section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: OK, I'll look at it. Maybe you'd like to look at the organisation of the function section, then? I too got diverted, funny you should mention History. I'm just writing On Translating Beowulf... couldn't help it! Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I did some more to the History section but think the Function section, though not ideal, is adequate. I can't think of a better way to organise it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: OK, I guess I was rather coming to the same opinion. Shall I pop it in to GAN, then? Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

OK. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Pollia

Hello Chiswick, thank you for your earlier comment about the Pollia's coloration. My deletion might indeed have been to rigorously. Nevertheless, I think that the statement of 'brightest object in nature' should be toned down. There are numerous examples of reflectances brighter than the fruits from the Pollia plants, e.g. 80% in fish (Denton EJ, Nicol JAC (1966) A survey of reflectivity in silvery teleosts. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 46:685–722), 60% in beetles (Schultz TD, Bernard GD (1989) Pointillistic mixing of interference colours in cryptic tiger beetles. Nature 377:72–73) and squid (Sutherland RL, Mäthger LM, Hanlon RT, Urbas AM, Stone MO (2008) Cephalopod coloration model. I. Squid chromatophores and iridophores. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis 25(3):588–599)). The bright coloration of Pollia is evident, but should be compared to other natural objects and not be overstated (also see Cronin et al 2014 Visual Ecology). Shall I revise it again, now with more relevant other examples and references? Best, Pigmentkleur (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Well you might be right, but let me quote the source:

The bright blue coloration of this fruit is more intense than that of any previously described biological material. Uniquely in nature, the reflected color differs from cell to cell, as the layer thicknesses in the multilayer stack vary, giving the fruit a striking pixelated or pointillist appearance. Because the multilayers form with both helicoidicities, optical characterization reveals that the reflected light from every epidermal cell is polarized circularly either to the left or to the right, a feature that has never previously been observed in a single tissue.

— Vignolini et al. Pointillist structural color in Pollia fruit. PNAS, 2012.

Since this is a peer-reviewed paper and more recent than the other papers above, the claim seems to stand. Even if the 'most' eventually gets revised with new discoveries, 'exceptionally strong' will remain true. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Tay Whale

I just wanted to applaud you for the work on this article. I enjoyed reading it. Good luck with Good Article Nomination for it! Crispulop (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

How nice of you. Delighted someone enjoyed reading it! Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/The Manchester Rambler

Review completed. Nicely done! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, the seminal nature of this civil disobedience and its profound effect on Britain and its is really an important part of the context in which the song arose. You are writing for a world wide audience, and readers not from the UK will know nothing about this. So I think your deletions are misdirected. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, I'll look over them again with that in mind. My basic thinking is that the additions applied primarily to the Trespass article, but of course some degree of context is required. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I am a reasonably well informed and well educated USA editor, and this was not on my radar. Thanks for addressing it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bioluminescence

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bioluminescence 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 Spinningspark -- Spinningspark (talk) 15:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK for The Manchester Rambler

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of On Growth and Form

The article On Growth and Form you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:On Growth and Form for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tay Whale

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tay Whale 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 Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

CD = A Fellow of the Linnean Society

http://www.linnean.org/Education+Resources/History_of_science

'J.P.' (Butler)

2.30.188.133 (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, this is usable, but dates would have been useful. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tay Whale

The article Tay Whale you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Tay Whale 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 Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The Ever-Expanding Chiswick

What about Bedford Park, and the area immediately north and west of Chiswick Park Station such as Bollo Lane, Fairlawn Avenue or Montgomery Road. Is this not Chiswick?

I think you'll find it's formally Acton Green; like Clapham, Chiswick is a growing parish, which I predict will encompass Gunnersbury, Acton and Brentford in the near future, having already engulfed Turnham Green and Strand-on-the-Green, among other Anglo-Saxon villages! But we have to go with reliably published sources. I doubt if estate agents can be trusted to be reliable with anything, except their own fees, of course. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bioluminescence

The article Bioluminescence you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bioluminescence 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 Spinningspark -- Spinningspark (talk) 00:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The Cookery Book of Lady Clark of Tillypronie

I was about to launch a GAN review, but then reflected that with Christmas at our throats next week now is not the time to be setting seven-day deadlines for requested changes. Instead, I have transcribed the notes I was intending to leave there, and put them here instead, for your consideration. I'm on much more familiar ground with this article than with the last of your GANs I tangled with; the WP articles on Elizabeth David and her books are mostly by me, so you can write me down as another foodie. I blew the dust off Mrs David's Spices, Salt and Aromatics in the English Kitchen, and can tell you, if you'd prefer to add a page reference instead of the link at ref 17, that ED's mention of Lady Clark's Thick Parmesan Biscuits is on pp. 230–31 of my copy (the Grub Street 2000 reissue, ISBN 9781902304663). Some comments:

• Lead
  • "Lady Charlotte Clark" – dear me, you'll incur the wrath of those strange souls who sleep with Debrett under their pillows (I nearly wrote that they slept with Burke's): you mustn't call her Lady Charlotte unless she was the daughter of an earl or even posher nobleman. As her father was a commoner, she was Charlotte, Lady Clark.
  • "the cook Elizabeth David" – she was a cook, of course, but "cookery writer" as you describe her later in the text seems a better description.
• Context
  • "You tell us practically nothing of the Clarks. There is a Times obituary of Sir John, dated 14 April 1910 (which I can send you if you haven't got online access to The Times's archives) which tells you more than enough for your present article.
  • "They lived for some years in Turin" – the last person named was Henry James, and I think you should write "The Clarks lived…" here to avoid ambiguity.
  • Blockquote – the parenthentic dashes should be either unspaced em-dashes or spaced en-dashes, and not hyphens.
• Book
  • I don't for a moment suggest that you must do it, but have you considered putting the list of contents into two or possibly even three columns? Easier on your reader's eye, I find.
• Approach
  • "'Zucchetti à la Piedmontaise.'"" – there is an extra set of closing quotes here
• Modern
  • "an inspiration for, the great Elizabeth David" – WP:OVERLINK at this point
  • "well-travelled diplomats wife" – I see you have faithfully transcribed the original, in which there is no possessive apostrophe. I'm not sure what to suggest here. It's too minor a matter for a [sic]; I think the MoS gives you licence to add the missing apostrophe silently. You may like to consider.
  • In the first Holt blockquote, the quotation marks should be doubles, not singles. In the second there are more hyphens that need replacing with dashes
  • Last blockquote – more quotation marks that should be doubles, not singles
• Notes
  • "Courgettes or Zucchini" – capitalisation really wanted here?
• References
  • There are several mentions of "Frere (1909)" but no bibliographical details of the work in the refs/citations section. They are included earlier, within the main text, but I think they should be repeated here with the refs. You should add OCLC numbers for both editions there, too: WorldCat will oblige.
  • The links to the Find My Past site should include the {{subscription}} template
  • You might standardise on either "page" or "p." in your book refs. Compare, e.g. refs 13 and 14.
  • To my mind the bibliographical info for ref 14 should include the ISBN (or OCLC if for some reason there isn't an ISBN)
  • Page ranges (ref 6) and date ranges (ref 14) should have an unspaced en-dash rather than a hyphen, and I should say the hyphen in ref 7 ought to be a spaced en-dash.
  • Ref 15 – page number lacking (I can get this from the British Library after Christmas if it's a problem)
  • Ref 16 – The Spectator should be italicised, as the TLS is in the previous ref.

I hope these points are useful. By all means move them to the article talk page if you feel they'd be more suitably located there. I'll be glad to return to the GAN in the New Year, if someone else hasn't bagged this delectable article for review. Meanwhile, warmest seasonal greetings, sir! – Tim riley talk 14:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: after discussion on my talk page we have agreed to go ahead with the GAN now, and I am copying my comments, above, over to the GAN review page. Tim riley talk 15:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Cookery Book of Lady Clark of Tillypronie

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Cookery Book of Lady Clark of Tillypronie 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 Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 16:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Cookery Book of Lady Clark of Tillypronie

The article The Cookery Book of Lady Clark of Tillypronie you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Cookery Book of Lady Clark of Tillypronie 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 Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The columns still don't work on my ancient desktop but are right as ninepence on my modernish laptop. I can ask no more. I loved this article! In the unlikely event that waspish Anglican bishops or angst-ridden choreographers are of interest I have two GANs in the queue for assessment, but speaking as one who rarely looks in to GAN/FAC for articles on uncongenial subjects I quite understand if you are not inclined. Their turn will come. Tim riley talk 18:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I'll take a look to see if I remotely have the expertise. Have a good holiday. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello, Chiswick Chap, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Happy editing, —Lotje (talk to me) 03:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Institute for New Culture Technologies-t0

Hi, Chiswick Chap, I was wondering how to tackle that page. imo it's in a real mess. Lotje (talk) 07:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's an exceptionally tidy mess! It's an elegantly written, well-structured and seemingly properly-referenced article. I imagine you mean it has a promotional tinge to it, suggesting some sort of conflict of interest in its construction? That is imaginable but doesn't make it a mess; I doubt if deletion is on the cards, so the action suggested by the tag at the top (slimming down the external links) is the most obvious thing you could do. The redlinks might or might not be feasible as articles; if they'll never happen, they could be removed; and perhaps the article could be checked carefully for any hints of promotional tone, but I don't think there's much wrong there really. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)