User talk:Snowmanradio/Archive 15

Another pic

Hi Snowman: Do you have time to upload a Flickr picture for me? I've been working on the Chimney Swift article and have found a picture of roosting swifts here which would be useful. Thanks for any help you can provide... MeegsC (talk) 03:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I have uploaded the two in the set. Snowman (talk) 22:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! MeegsC (talk) 00:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

If you have any more suggestions for upload from Flickr, please let me know. Snowman (talk) 16:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Future extinct birds FACs

Hi, I have a couple of GAs I want to nominate for FAC in the future, and I have a feeling that you'll end up reviewing them, so to spare the trouble, which of the following do you like the most? King Island Emu or Red Rail? The one you choose will be the next FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 14:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

That is up to you. I am planning a FAR to start on about 28 February 2012 on the Rodrigues Solitaire, mostly because of problems with verification, which I have already raised on the talk page. Snowman (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Well alright. If ever you get a sudden strike of love for either, give me a note. FunkMonk (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Issues fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I am also planning a FAR on Dodo owing to problems with verification, which I have mentioned on the article's talk page. Snowman (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Will be fixed too, in the not so far future. No need to waste the time of the already overstretched FAR people. FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Death of Hendrix

Thanks much for your excellent edits. I appreciate your help. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I mostly copy-edited based on facts in the article and read between the lines a little. Snowman (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Great work. This is my first "from scratch" article, so I havn't had much polishing help from others. Thanks again for your edits. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you using USA or UK spelling and dates? Snowman (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

US. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks again for all your wonderful edits. The article reads much smoother now and is much improved due to your effort. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Please look at the sources for answers to reviewers queried and suggestions. A depressed mood is not the same as depression. I would have thought that, when a person is brought in dead to an A&E dept, a resuscitation attempt is not attempted unless there is some doubt if the person is dead or not. Snowman (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• The issue of depression is now resolved. As far as resuscitation as a typical formality, all I can go by is what the reliable sources say, and Dr Bannister (the attending physician) said: "On admission [Hendrix] was obviously dead. He had no pulse, no heartbeat, and the attempt to resuscitate him was merely a formality." Thanks again for your comments and edits. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• The two paragraphs on the post-mortem examination could probably be made into one paragraph, and the findings organised in a slightly more logical sequence. The general nourishment would go earlier, and so on. Shall I have a go? The next paragraph is about the inquest. Snowman (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• Absolutely! I would appreciate any copy-edits you make, thanks! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• Ok. Please be ready to fix anything that I break. Snowman (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• No worries! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• It is late here now. I will have a look to see what you have made of it tomorrow. Snowman (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks again for the great review and all your excellent edits. The article is much improved due to your effort. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Composite image

Hi! Would you care to share your opinion about the composite/single infobox image issue here? I would really appreciate it. Thanks! --Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 07:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Please note that the Wikilink was not copied to this page, but I found it anyway. Snowman (talk) 10:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:LEADCITE

I noticed this edit, however; according to WP:LEADCITE: "Some material, including direct quotations and contentious material about living persons must be provided with an inline citation every time it is mentioned, regardless of the level of generality or the location of the statement", which is why I always include an in-line cite to direct quotes in the lead. Thanks again for all your helpful edits and comments. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I see, it is to support the quotation. I did not know that. Snowman (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Mallard pic

Hi Snowman. Can you take a look at [File:Anas platyrhynchos male female quadrat.jpg]? Someone has replaced the original featured picture with a new one, which (while nice) is certainly not the featured picture. I don't know how to restore the original version. And presumably the uploader (whom I can't identify, as I can't see anything about the upload in the history) should be notified that this is not acceptable. Thanks! MeegsC (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I have reverted the change on Commons as a temporary fix, but the new image of unknown copyright status is still in the file history. The image in the file history would probably need to be removed, so I have asked a Commons administrator about it and I think that he is likely to communicate to the uploader about it. Snowman (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! MeegsC (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	For all your work helping out at the Death of Jimi Hendrix article. Without your edits, the article would not be featured today! Thanks much! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• I think that is a really nice barn star. If you need any copy-editing on post-mortem findings for a Wiki article, please let me know. Snowman (talk) 12:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

	The Fossilized Barnstar
	Though we've had quite some disagreements about subfossil bird articles in the past, I'd like to express that I appreciate the great work you do on the bird project, and I don't mind further, healthy criticism. Keep it up! FunkMonk (talk) 12:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you. After a prolonged cold spell here, we have some warmer weather and spring has arrived, so I have been spending more time out-of-doors. I plan to return to extinct animal FAC discussions when I have more computer-time. I have been using a Linux system, but AWB works best on Windows systems, so I have not been able to do any semi-automated edits recently. I also plan to get a Windows system running again to do more script assisted semi-automated tasks. Snowman (talk) 12:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Conor Travers, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages St John’s College and The Telegraph (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) 11:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• I have fixed those issues. Snowman (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Sgt peppers pict.jpg

I've stumbled across File:Sgt peppers pict.jpg, which you uploaded in 2006. Since this is a photograph of a 2-D copyrighted artwork, I don't think this can be tagged as a "free" image (see commons:Commons:2D copying). Do you agree? -- John of Reading (talk) 13:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Well spotted. I do not know why a bot tagged it for moving to Commons. I think that it is fair use on the Wiki and not a Creative Commons image. Snowman (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sgt peppers pict.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. John of Reading (talk) 07:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

That's the standard notification message, of course, but it does contain some useful links. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Jurong Bird Park Panorail

Category:Jurong Bird Park Panorail, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Tim! (talk) 07:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• I do not mind if it is deleted. There is a cat on Commons with that name. Snowman (talk) 23:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

hey

Hey Snowman, was just curious what your rationale was for one of your recent edits on Galapagos Mockingbird. Why do you prefer to as a main image? I actually thought the latter was pretty good so I was surprised to see it not only replaced but removed from the page. Benjamint 05:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• The old infobox image looks overexposed to me and I think that the brown objects in the sand are distracting. Further, the old image is licensed with the GNU Free Documentation License (version 1.2 only) is not as user friendly as the multi-licenced new image. Snowman (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• But on the other hand the image you replaced it with is less than half the resolution, and the bird subject itself is less than a quarter, once given a decent crop it would be 500px wide. Additionally the angle is suboptimal showing much less of the bird... the licencing might be more restrictive on the old image but at least the image is itself was usable. Actually I'd like to switch them back, I made an edit to the image addressing your IQ concerns. Keep up the good work though, barely a day has gone by recently when I haven't seen your name in the edit history of a page, you must be very prolific! Benjamint 05:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Picture help 2

Hi Snowman! Hope all is well at your end. I'm wondering if you can help me with a picture issue. The file Gavia Stellata Ölfusá 20090606.jpg seems to have vanished from Commons. (See Red-throated Loon, and the error message in the taxobox.) When I go to Commons and look for it, I can't see why it was deleted. Can you? I'm wondering if someone has just moved it. MeegsC (talk) 12:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Is was deleted by User:JuTa on Commons. The edit summary says "08:57, 16 June 2013 JuTa (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Gavia Stellata Ölfusá 20090606.jpg (No license since 2010-04-30)". see Commons. I am puzzled that the infobox image did not have a licence on Commons. I wonder if the page was vandalized and key information removed. I expect that User:JuTa would be able to explain. Alternatively, I think that any Commons administrator can visualise deleted pages, so I wonder if User:Jimfbleak will be able to help read the deleted pages and examine the page history. Snowman (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I saw this because this page is watchlisted from previous comments, and it seems the deletion could had been handled better. The user clearly just forgot to add a license, and his other images have this one: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eyjafjallaj%C3%B6kull_ash_cloud_20100417.jpg FunkMonk (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

If the image is the work of the author, then the author may be willing to add a licence making it feasible for the image to be undeleted ready for the author to add a license. It looks like the deleting administrator is running a bot that deletes images without licences. Snowman (talk) 22:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

It is summer here and I am spending quite a lot of time out of doors. It is likely that I will do more editing in the Winter. Snowman (talk) 22:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I have restored the image and added the license the user has added to all his other images. It seems he is unresponsive. FunkMonk (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that un-deleting the image is logical and based on a fair interpretation of the author's likely intentions. I presume that the author forgot to fill in all the fields of the template that he used. I have added the same template that the author used on his other image and added the missing fields of the template, so that the template renders properly and very likely to be to what the author intended. Snowman (talk) 09:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Has the author had any other images deleted owing of the same reason? I note that the author has not edited on Commons for about three years. Snowman (talk) 10:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

His talk page is empty apart form this deletion notice, so I think it's the only case. FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Garden Warbler eggs

They look like Garden Warbler eggs, so I think the description is correct. I don't speak German, but I used Google translate which rendered

Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen
Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen: Wenn Sie das lizenzierte Werk bearbeiten, abwandeln oder als Vorlage für ein neues Werk verwenden, dürfen Sie die neu entstandenen Werke nur unter dieser oder einer zu dieser kompatiblen Lizenz nutzen und weiterverbreiten.

as

"Noncommercial-Share Alike"
"Noncommercial-Share Alike: If you alter, transform, or use as a template for a new plant the licensed work, you may use the resulting work only under the same or a compatible license and distribute this."

This suggests that there may be a potential problem, since there is no reason why German Wikipedia should have the same licensing requirements as en-wiki. I wouldn't take a machine translation as gospel though. Do you know anyone who speaks German?

I have a pdf of Coloured figures of the eggs of British birds by Henry Seebohm which has a Garden Warbler egg on plate 52. The book is 1896, so obviously no problem with copyright. Trouble is that they are life-size, which for this species means very small. If we can't use the German image, do you think it's worth using that? I'll post a link to the book shortly, it will take a little while to upload Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

link to book Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

If the German photograph is non-commercial, then it should not be used on Commons and I think that it would be best to avoid fair use criteria on en Wiki. Snowman (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I can not get the image in the pdf that you linked. Snowman (talk) 20:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

There are four colour plates between pp 208 and 209, plate 52 is the last of those. Or do you mean it isn't rendering correctly? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

No need to use Dropbox as the book is available from the Internet Archive. The Figure is here. The resolution is poor - even the label "Garden Warbler" is somewhat blurred. Aa77zz (talk) 06:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I've downloaded the page from the Internet Archive (as a tarred jpeg2 image - I struggled). I've cropped the page and uploaded a picture of the egg to Commons:

File:Seebohm Garden Warbler egg.jpg | Painting of an egg of the Garden Warbler. The resolution is poor but is it useful? Aa77zz (talk) 07:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that< I'll add it, but no big deal for me if Snowman decides it isn't good enough Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that image looks fine to me. I will endeavour to remove the text from the image soon, but I am busy for almost the whole of rest of the day. Snowman (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

FAC

Hi Snowman, thanks for your help with the warbler FAC. Next up will be Pacific Swift. It's quite short because there isn't much out there. It will be a few days before I nominate, so if you get the chance to have a look and see if there are any obvious flaws I'd be grateful. No problem if you can't Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

This swift does seem less complicated than some species with a great mass of literature about them. The two swift images I added were lucky finds using the search term "bird" on flickr. I am aware that you edit swallow, martin and swift articles and so the images caught my attention. I have not got a lot of time indoors on my computer at the moment, because I am prioritising out-of-doors tasks while the sunny weather here lasts, so my reviewing might be slow with gaps of a few days between comments. I assume slow reviewing is better than no reviewing. If I become really busy, then I would hope to make a brief comment in the FA nomination discussion saying that I have not got time to participate in the discussion any further with a neutral stance to avoid an undue delays in the FA nomination process. Snowman (talk) 08:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

On Commons there are two different swift range maps. Why is this? Snowman (talk) 08:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The original map was made some time ago before Pacific Swift was split, the southern Indian records appear to be wanderers from the Himalayas, now a different species so no longer appropriate. I've kept the breeding ranges of the former subspecies since it seems useful info and shows the overlap with Pacific. Those photos were a good find, I thought I was lucky in finding one that I could use! It will probably be couple of days before I nom the swift anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Challenge (cycle and car)

The article Challenge (cycle and car) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Little content, not really notable WP:N, one source.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 14:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Woodlark

I am currently working on this article (as you can tell from the under construction tags at the top) so I would appreciate if you could not remove content or add CN templates until I am finished. I welcome you're contribution to the article, but some of your edits are counter productive at this point as I'm either going to have to add the content in again later or remove the templates once what I've sorted the sources. I should be finished in a couple of hours, I'm just reading through a couple of new sources I was sent. --teb00007 ^{Talk • Contributions} 20:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Please note that the template (or tag), Template:under construction, welcomes other editors to make edits by saying "You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well". With this invitation in the template in mind, I am puzzled by your comment above. Personally speaking, I have had some good results collaborating with editors when they are editing an article at the same time. I have mainly been doing corrections and tidy up work, as you can see. I have been writing some descriptive edit summaries, which I hope will help you to help you improve the article. I added a cn tag with an edit summary to indicate where some information can not be found in the relevant in-line reference. You are welcome to remove the cn tag when you have a suitable source. Snowman (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The "under construction" template invites edits to the page from other editors, so I think that you have added the wrong template for this situation. What about using template:In use for short periods of intense editing? This template indicates that you are very busy editing and you want to avoid edit conflicts. Snowman (talk) 21:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't very clear (and may have come across as rude, that wasn't my intention). I am glad you're contributing to the article - I would actually like to get it to GA status eventually so the more help the better. It was the sentence in the In culture section that was removed I was referring to as I was writing that section at the time (what was there had been in the article before I arrived, but I had tweaked it a little). I hadn't seen the edits since then, but I have now and you've certainly improved the article. Also, I thought the cn template was in a different place (I thought it was at the distribution and habitat section which I'm also currently writing) but it's justified where it is. Sorry for bothering you, please continue editing the article. Could I ask, though, that you not edit the distribution, food or in culture sections at the moment. I am currently writing those sections. I work in notepad (it's easier to read pdfs or websites at the same time that way) then copy what I've done over to wikipedia, so I might inadvertently undo your work in those sections. --teb00007 ^{Talk • Contributions} 21:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Do not worry about rewriting and copy-editing the amendments that I made to the article. Go ahead and add the line missing from the culture section and amend it to make sense. I like to see logical improvements to articles. It is an interesting point that you raised about the illustration - is it a drawing or a painting? I generally see drawings as a bit sketchy or in black and white, but I am sure that this is an over generalisation. I noticed that the Wiki article on the author says that he is a painter. It is late here, so I will not do much more editing tonight. What is this notepad that you use? Incidentally, one Woodlark territory has been found in Wales in 2006; see RSPB. Snowman (talk) 21:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I use TextPad - it highlights code, making it easier to focus on the text. It's not brilliant (I've not worked out how to customise it to highlight links and templates yet) but it's still useful. I've just reworded that sentence, actually. I found a second source that claims there may have been woodlarks in Scotland in the 18th century so I've added that in. "Illustration" may be a better word to use. Painting and drawing both don't seem to fit to me. Illustration sounds more scientific. We live in the same country, so it's getting pretty late here too. I'm a student, though, with nothing to do until September so the time means little to me. I'll try to finish the sections I'm writing tonight. If you could take a look at them when you've got a chance I'd be grateful. Thanks for the link. My sources are a little dated. --teb00007 ^{Talk • Contributions} 22:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I've not been able to do much on Wikipedia recently because I had an assignment due for summer school. I'm going to try to finish this article off tonight, though, and would like your input if you have a chance. I'll re-add a bit about Burns, highlighting the conflicting sources. --teb00007 ^{Talk • Contributions} 22:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Puffins and things

Thank you for your detailed work on the Atlantic Puffin FAC and your support after the various improvements had been made.

As I am currently competing in the final round of the WikiCup, the articles I work on tend to be ones that will score a good number of points. Atlantic Puffin was chosen for this reason and more recently, Birth. You have made quite a number of amendments to the latter article. I have put it forward for DYK, for which it should qualify. Would you like me to add your name to the nomination as a joint contributor? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, but I am a bit uneasy about a joint nomination on the "Birth" article. I think that most of my edits on the "Birth" article were quite small amendments of common knowledge in one section and the introduction. Further, I did not contribute to choosing the hook and I am a bit puzzled by some of the article's contents, which I am not familiar with. I would like opt-in one day for another DKY. Snowman (talk) 21:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Re Long-tailed Duck. This duck is colourful and quite rare, but I am not sure what is in the literature to get it to GA. Snowman (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The article is clearly not suitable for DYK as it is too long already. You could try expanding it and see what you could find. I usually go about things the other way round, - I come across an interesting book or article that deals with a subject and start from there. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• I think that it is usual for nominators to thank reviewers on the FAC page, and I would be grateful if you would also add something over there for completion. Snowman (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I do normally, and apologise that in this instance I failed to do so. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David Frost, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph (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) 10:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I have fixed it. Snowman (talk) 11:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Sea

Please remove your "Split-apart|Humans and the sea" tag from the top of the article Sea. As you well know, the article is currently a Featured Article Candidate and it is a distraction to that process to introduce the split discussion now. You have mentioned the idea of dividing the article in two on several occasions during the FA review and I do not believe anybody else has supported you or agreed with your view that the article is too long. On the contrary, several people have expressed their support for the article as it is, and Hamiltonstone was displeased that the Culture section had been separated off, a thing we specifically did at your request. If the tag remains in place, I will ask a delegate to intervene. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

To balance what you say about splitting off the culture section, User ColonelHenry specifically said that he did not want to see the culture section re-expanded after it was split off. Also, asking about article length on the talk page and using a template on the article page is what the guideline WP:PROSPLIT recommends. I think that this is much better than canvassing an users known tolerant opinion, as you appear to have done in your edit here. Snowman (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the tag. If the article were to be split during the FAC review, the whole review process would be void. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

If split in half, then I am not sure what would become of the current FAC, so I have just asked one of the FA delegates (my previous edit). At this juncture, I would guess that both parts of the article are 90% to 95% up to FA level. I have been meaning to have a look at the content of the "Sea" page in other language Wikis, but I have not put them in a translator yet. I have no idea how the "votes" will finally stack up. If there is a consensus soon, then everyone will have to go with that, and decision making will be out of your hands. It looks like the initial momentum is with one big combined article. If the FAC has to be run again, then I think that FA delegates seem to like most FACs to take at least one month, but I might be wrong. Time marches. Snowman (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Rachel Carson quote

I have opened a discussion here regarding copyright issue and have flagged it at WT:FAC. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 00:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Sea FAC

Thank you for all the work you have put into reviewing Sea at FAC. It is now nearly seven weeks since the article became a candidate and three weeks since you first commented on it. It is the longest standing FAC bar two, out of about fifty. Neither this article, nor any other FA, is ever going to be perfect and it is in any event subject to future alterations. I think you have already picked up most of the serious omissions and some of the things you have recently mentioned are minor alterations that you could make yourself if you chose. I think it is about time that you wound up your review and left it to the delegates to make a decision as to whether the article should become a FA or not. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I am still picking up significant errors. Today, I noticed that meteorite impact into the sea was called a geological event. Note that I am making edits directly to the article that I can easily fix. Some of the new sections have only been reviewed by one or two people. I think that it is highly likely that further work is needed to iron out significant problems. Note that there is on-going discussion on the Sea talk page about Carson's quote. Note that I think that restarting the FAC should be considered by the delegates, because it has been unstable during the FAC with many new sections being added and some of the culture sections being split off. I think that some of the new sections have only been reviewed by one or two people. Snowman (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I addressed your latest batch of errors, such as the meteorite, yesterday. If you are concerned that not enough editors have reviewed the newer sections of the article, we can ask them to take another look. I am absolutely against starting a new review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I have been doing some edits to the article today, but it can be difficult to incorporate amendments into the existing system of in-line references (some of the books are years old), because I do not have access to all of them. You seem to be somewhat amateurish about writing anything technical, but you may like to re-phrase my amendments, because you can apply the English language better than me and probably a lot quicker. Some of the work may more easily be done with edits and re-edits directly to the article and clear edit summaries, rather than long discussions on talk pages. I am not sure what to do about the little-seen new sections. Perhaps, User Chikswick Chap could help. When is he going to be back? This article is probably twice as long as most, so it is not surprising that the FAC is taking longer. Snowman (talk) 10:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

So the process is now over. You put a lot of effort into the review and probably got to know the article better than any of the other reviewers. Thank you for the time you spent on it. Although I did not agree with all of your suggestions, you did pick up some important omissions and as a result the article is more comprehensive than it otherwise would have been. Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I just wanted to second Cwmhiraeth's comment - i didn't agree with all your suggestions but thought the article benefitted from the exceptional breadth of your reviewing. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 11:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: sea

This is a note to let the main editors of sea know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on November 2, 2013. 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/November 2, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The sea is the connected body of salty water that covers over 70 percent of the Earth's surface. It moderates the Earth's climate and has important roles in the water, carbon, and nitrogen cycles. It has been travelled since ancient times, while scientific oceanography dates broadly from Captain James Cook's 18th-century voyages. Winds produce waves and surface currents, and deep-sea currents carry cold water to every ocean. Large events such as submarine earthquakes can cause destructive tsunamis. Tides are caused by the rotation of the Earth and the gravitational effects of the Moon and the Sun. A variety of organisms live in the sea's many habitats, from the sunlit surface to the cold, dark abyssal zone, and from the Arctic to colourful tropical coral reefs. Life itself may have started in the sea. The sea provides humans with food including fish and shellfish, and enables trade, travel, mineral extraction, power generation, naval warfare, and leisure, though often at the cost of marine pollution. The sea has been important in human culture since Homer's Odyssey, appearing in literature, mythology, marine art, cinema, theatre, classical music and dream interpretation. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

	Thrown salt
	Thanks for all your input and edits at the salt GAN. The article is much better for it. I hope you'll continue to keep an eye on it. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Mother Carey

That looks good, shows her, her "chickens" and a sinking ship. If you are pushed for space, the Gorky image could go. Thanks for that, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I will wait until the Commons bots have rotated it before cropping it. The image also shows a cloudy sky and a rough sea, possibly a storm. Snowman (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I rotated it when I cropped it. I have shown it in the article, with a basic caption. I wondered about highlighting in the caption about the ship, the which, chickens and storm. Snowman (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Gorky

I've responded on my talk page. -- Vmenkov (talk) 04:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Snowman, I want to get this through FAC, and I'm obviously not going to convince you that any of the Gorky/anarchist stuff is relevant to this article, despite the RS reference for Cocker. The only way forward seems to be for me to remove the last three paragraphs of the article as it stands, together with the associated books and references. I can't say I'm happy about this, but one of us has to give ground. However, before taking this drastic step, I want to be sure that this addresses your concerns in full, and isn't just going to start another interminable discussion. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

My main concern with the article is the scope for misunderstanding some of the over simplifications. I do not see this as a case of one of us having to give way, partly because I see the FAC as a drive to improve the article and there are many ways forward. Snowman (talk) 10:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for OED suggestion, I have a library card, but OED website won't accept it. And I can't afford $295! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, I needed the council's initials too! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The whole number on my card is the login; the first digits apply to the local council and the rest of the number is my own library-card number. Snowman (talk) 13:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

footnote

Thanks for creating the footnote, I had thought about doing that, but let it slide. In the penultimate paragraph of the section, I wondered if "bird of storm" would be more natural as "storm bird" — what do you think? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

To me, "bird of storm" sounds like it has more of the essence of change, so I think it is much more suitable. I wonder if "bird of storms" fits with the translation. A similar piece on the family page seems to me to be even more metaphysical (that might not be the right word), and explains the analogies used in poetry and to describe Gorgy better. I did not what to adapt anything from the family page for the species page, partly because I do not know the sources used on the family page. Also, I was unsure about asking User Vmenkov to write anything extra for the species page without a consensus on the specifications of what to add. Snowman (talk) 19:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I suspect that "bird of storm" is a literal, rather than natural, translation. I'll change to "storm bird". The family article has plenty of material, but needs a good deal of work to clean up. We both had to put in some effort to clean up the new refs for this article, and the other page has worse problems. Something to sort out if it ever goes to GA/FA. I think this article is fine now, we don't need to delve too far into the metaphysics when the poem and Gorky are both more suitable pages for extended discussion Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is too easy to write too much and cover topics which belong elsewhere. If people are interested in the poetry, then they can easily click on the wikilinks and read other pages within the Wikipedia. Snowman (talk) 08:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Follow up

Following your comments on the Desert talk page I have created a new article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Redback

I have asked Hamiltonstone to look and have a think about the article as he has been good at objecting if he finds the prose too dry or not engaging, and is an outsider to biology articles. He is Australian though, so he will have some familiarity with them. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. I have asked an editor to consider the bites section, because I thought he made a good review of the medical aspects of the Salt article. Snowman (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

NB:I think we may have interpreted life cycle of male spiders differently. See Talk:Redback_spider#Reproduction_query Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Crocodilia

We may nominate Crocodilia for GA soon would you be able to review and prepare it for FA. LittleJerry (talk) 04:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for asking me. I do not know much about the topic, so I do not want to participate extensively in the FA nor GA. Snowman (talk) 10:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I had a look at one section and did some copy-editing, which you may or may not agree with, but it might give you something to think about. I suspect that the other sections need copy-editing as well. What about crocks is zoos and crock displays like this one at Australia Zoo; File:Steve irwin at Australia zoo.jpg. I did not see the word "brain" mentioned - I understand that they have a very small brain, making some of their instinctive behaviours predictable; some species are very aware of animals stumbling, which prompts them to attack. Possible omissions: Foramen of Panizza. Snowman (talk) 11:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Would you be able to copyedit the rest of the article? LittleJerry (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I would rather work on pages that I know a bit more about or on images. Snowman (talk) 23:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay then. LittleJerry (talk) 14:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Redback spider, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Serum and Hyperimmune (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) 09:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• Now fixed. Snowman (talk) 00:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Vulturine Guineafowl may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"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:

• }}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• Whoops. Typo fixed. Snowman (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Indigo Bunting 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:

• The '''Indigo Bunting''' (''Passerina cyanea'') ), is a small [[seed]]-eating [[bird]] in the family [[Cardinalidae]]. It is [[bird migration|

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Typo fixed. Snowman (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 17 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Philby's Partridge page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 08:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Typo fixed. Snowman (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Hooded Parrot

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Stub Contest/Entries

I noticed that you have Nemegt Formation listed 3 times under re-rating. Chris857 (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Well spotted. I have removed the accidental duplication. Snowman (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow, you are romping ahead. Just thought I'd point out that quite a few of your pages still have stub tags. Schwede66 05:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I assume that you mean the WP banners on the talk pages. I will look for the WP banners that I have missed and upgrade then. Snowman (talk) 09:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I have made a second edit to a few talk pages, to complete the re-rating. I was doing some tidy up work as well, so the submitted list is only those articles, which I re-rated up from a Stub. Snowman (talk) 11:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Andrew Dickson Murray 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:

• | death_place = [[Kensington]])
• | PLACE OF DEATH = [[Kensington]])

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• I have removed the odd bracket. It was there before edited the page. Snowman (talk) 19:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:TAXONORPHAN

Hi. In case you didn't know yet, please don't add {{orphan}} tags to articles on taxa and organisms per WP:TAXONORPHAN, as you did at Saiphos equalis. By their very nature, they usually can only be linked to one other article.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 22:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Electron Scattering C-Class Upgrade

Hi Snowmanradio,

Thank you very much for your edits on the Electron scattering article, and for the revised classification. I happen to be a 4th year university student, and upgrading the electron scattering article is part of my project. The goal is simply to improve the article as much as possible, and the quality scale is a good way to measure this. I am not sure if you have any background in the topic, but what advice could you give me to continue to improve the article towards a B or even GA?

The article is still under construction, so I would like to know what you would like to see completed to have it graded to a B-class. Currently I am summarizing the different types of scattering, and have further plans to put into place towards GA later.

Thanks, IndianFace (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. The article seems to be in good shape, but it a bit advanced for me, so I do not plan to expand it. Snowman (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)