Jump to content

User talk:Sasata/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20→Archive 23

Mitt Romney

Hi Sasata. Since you are an experienced FA reviewer, and now that you aren't fiendlishly busy with the Cup (congratulations / commiserations, by the way), I think the FAC on Romney might benefit from some more non-USA eyes on it. It's a long article though, so... Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 02:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Headers

You may wish to familiarise yourself with the history of the MOS before you engage in edit wars on weak ground. There are areas where the MOS has been watered down, but the original conception recommended both placing images to the side of level 3 headers and below for better layout as well as alternating image placement. Samsara (FA • FP) 15:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

  • No, you can't make up "history" and justify your incorrect image placement on that ground. As I have pointed out, the MOS does _not_ say to place images left/right, only that "Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left" (my bold). Please do not revert again unless you have an actual policy-based argument for doing do. Sasata (talk) 15:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not making up history, but you're not sufficiently positively motivated to go check on it. The original phrase implied that presence of multiple images is a trigger for alternating placement. At some point along the line, this meaning was lost by a poor copy-edit of the document that went unchallenged. Samsara (FA • FP) 15:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • We follow what's written in the policy now, not what may have been written in the policy in the past (as an Admin, shouldn't you know that?). Can you point to an actual extant policy that supports your edits? If not, you have no justification for reverting my edits. Sasata (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • per MOS:IMAGELOCATION: "In most cases, images should be right justified on pages, which is the default placement." and "Avoid placing images on the left at the start of any section or subsection, because it makes it harder for readers to find the beginning of the text." (p.s. sorry for getting "policy" and "guideline" confused", I'm not that familiar with wikilawyer terms) Sasata (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

GA Notice

GA Notice
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Cortinarius iodes that you recently 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.

— ṞṈ™ 02:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
· · ·

re GAN Gyromitra caroliniana

Hi,

I've begun a review of your nomination and left some comments at Talk:Gyromitra caroliniana/GA1.

Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 22:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Malaria

Thanks for bearing with me again. I wanted malaria to pass by October 31st, but unfortunately that didn't happen. Sorry about that. Biosthmors (talk) 21:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

  • No need to apologize, there is no deadline. I appreciate your valuable assistance in rooting out problems at this stage. When the time comes, I'd like it if you'd be a co-nominator at the FAC – I think you've put as much effort into improving the article as I have. Sasata (talk) 16:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

An editor introduced some text then I copy-edited it and now I'm left wondering if it was an improvement or not.[1] Feel free to revert if you think it is not an improvement. Biosthmors (talk) 23:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look today. Sasata (talk) 13:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

An apology

I just saw this comment made by you on October 24th on the WikiCup page; "... these GANs were completed over a month ago, but not claimed until yesterday. I can't see any reason for having done this other than to "hide" these points from other competitors until they could be claimed at such a time when it would be impossible to match them. Of course, as the rules are now, there's nothing illegal about this, it just seems sneaky and underhanded."

My original intention was to encourage complacency in other competitors so that they put less effort into a final push. It then became difficult to know when to actually claim the points I had amassed and I was a bit embarrassed at adding them in. I agree with you, it was not a very nice strategy. Actually, because we work in the same area - Biology - I thought you would have seen my earlier GA nominations and realize that I had unclaimed points. I was keeping an eye on the actions of other competitors and you had promptly stymied my attempt at FAC for Amphibian. You meanwhile were submitting multiple article hooks in DYK and I originally thought you would be putting Malaria through FAC. So, I am sorry that I embarked on the delaying strategy and apologise. My actions were made worse by the fact that you had previously been helpful to me and had done such a thorough (and helpful) job of reviewing Bivalvia at FAC. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I hope the judges will consider amending the rule for future competitions so the competitors can focus on writing content, rather than keeping track of others' unclaimed points. Perhaps you might consider agreeing with my rule tweak on the talk page? Anyway, I still have a lengthy list of articles I want to work on, so ... rematch in 2013? Sasata (talk) 06:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Rematch challenge accepted. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Dromedary FAC

Just to say that I have worked on all your comments, and await your replies. Could you return here soon? Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

You dealt with the examples I gave (which were mostly from the lead), but these kind of issues occur throughout the entire article. I'll come back for a full review when these have been fixed (looks like one reviewer is willing to do a peer review, so that will surely help). Sasata (talk) 18:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

List of Tulostoma species

I'm about to get going in this article's ref hunting, but I must ask: are you sure that Wright has sections inside series? The order is supposed to go subgenus, section, subsection, series, subseries... (ICBN Vienna Art. 4.1). Circéus (talk) 03:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I've since returned the monograph to the library (but could get it back if necessary), and although I can't be sure, I think I just copied what was in the book. I wanted to include short descriptions of all the sections, but they were written in Latin ... Sasata (talk) 13:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Neither of us are crazy: this review  points out the problem. That means that Wright's series are invalid names (Art. 33.9) unless and until someone creates the appropriate combinations by swapping the series and sections ranks (i.e. all sections becoming series and vice-versa) of those names. Circéus (talk) 21:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Huh. You'd think if someone was going to the bother of writing a 300+-page monograph, they'd have someone who's read the code check the taxonomic novelties before publication. Should we remove the series listing, or add a citation to Halling's review? (or write a note to Taxon or similar journal and get the names validly published?) Sasata (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I say we give the full taxonomy with the caveat about series being invalid (interestingly enough, sect. Fimbriata seems to be validly published by Pouzar). If you want to try writing a nomenclatural note I'm game. As it happens I've published one this summer in Phytoneuron so I'm slightly less nervous about the prospect than I have been previously. Circéus (talk) 23:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Digging a bit further I'm fairly sure his Sect. Brumalia is also invalid. Should have been an autonym (T. mammosum is a synonym of T. brumale). Circéus (talk) 01:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm game too. What do we do? I guess I'll sign out the Wright monograph again, and start looking for Pouzar 1958? Sasata (talk) 02:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I can probably handle most of the writing if you're willing to deal with locating whatever sources I can't find in Montreal/online and scan the relevant pages (i.e. the protologues). If Wright/Pouzar were at UdM/McGill/Concordia/the botanical garden I'd get them myself, but they're not (and in fact the rickety online catalog of the garden is not even currently available). Hopefully we shouldn't be needing other super rare references since these two guys seems to have produced the entire modern framework. I'll leave this link here in case it turns out useful: it has a few refs to relevant older lit. Circéus (talk) 03:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I'll ILL request Pouzar (there's copies in UBC and U of A libraries). It's in Czech, so that'll be a hassle later, but I'm sure we can find someone to translate a page or two. Sasata (talk) 04:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
We mostly need Pouzar to make sure he wasn't basing his names on earlier work that needs to be cited and also because he, not Wright, will be the basionym for three of the four series names, so we need the correct page citations. I also need to elucidate whether Pouzar's Sect. Fimbriata correspond to the "series" or section of Wright. Circéus (talk) 04:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Calostoma's family and authority

I've entered into the world of fungal taxonomy articles, with Calostoma cinnabarinum, because weird red and yellow slimy things need articles, too. I tried to be pretty thorough with this, but I'm no expert on taxonomic research, and am not convinced I have the family status correct. I noticed you've been involved in a family/genus mismatch audit over on the Agaricales, and hoped you might have some insight on the Boletales side, too. Does Calostomataceae have any sort of wide recognition at this point, or is the whole mess still chumming in the Sclerodermataceae for the time being? While we're at it, regarding Calostoma itself, do you have any clue how its authority citation winds up being Corda (1809)? There's a sort of partial description by Persoon in 1809 and a better one by Desvaux the same year. Corda cleaned up a taxonomic mess, but not until 1842. Some of the older sources give the authority to Desvaux, but Index Fungurom and Mycobank (and a lot of other recent stuff) both cite Corda but with an 1809 date, which looks ... odd, since that's coincidentally the year he was born. I pretty much just observed that in my article's taxonomy section, although I wasn't able to provide anything like an explanation. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

These are all good questions, to which I don't have any quick answers. Let me do some digging around and get back to you (I've been meaning to revisit these taxa anyway). Excellent job BTW with C. cinnabarinum ... I hope you write about other weird and slimy species that need articles! Sasata (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I actually almost tripped myself up on the Calostoma thing: all the Desvaux/Corda mess above is specific to C. cinnabarinum; the genus itself is universally credited to Desvaux. That's something, I guess. As for other stuff, I've got a lot of random junk in my to-build list, including at least a few more fungus topics. My goal going into 2013 is to figure out how to write this sort of article faster. Three months and change isn't really the benchmark I'm aiming for! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
The 1809 year is clearly an IF error if and only if Corda's Anleitung is the source of the correct basionym. This kind of confusion is often found in taxonomic databases that source themselves elsewhere. The Anleitung is also on BHL, and it is clear that Corda describes no species whatsoever, and seems not to mention C. cinnabarinum at all (IF seemingly got the error from Saccardo).
Insofar as Corda is clearly attributing the genus to Desvaux, it's obvious to me the authority should be Desv. (1809), and a quick mention (probably in a footnote) that the data in IF and MB are incorrect/incomplete. I've sent IF an update too, so that should get corrected soon. Circéus (talk) 07:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
On further examination, it turns out Corda DOES mention the species in the plates' legends (Plate C, #38, fig. 10), which, presumably, is what is cited by the author of Mitremyces cinnabarinus, hence the resulting mess reported by Saccardo and integrated into IF. It's still not the place of publication of that name, though, so Calostoma cinnabarinum authorship remains Desvaux (1809). Circéus (talk) 07:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Does that hold for C. cinnabarinum specifically? Sources are in pretty good agreement that the genus Calostoma is Desv. (1809), but the type species is where we get into a lot of trouble. There are at least three different authorities that I can cite from literature: Desv. (1809); (Desv.) Mass. (1809); Corda (1809). At least everyone agrees on the year! I cannot personally see any way that Desvaux isn't the authority, but I'm not sure what to do with the sources that give Massee's monograph the nod as a revising authority. And if the Corda authority is wrong (it seems facially incorrect), can I say that? Unlike the cinnabarina problem, I don't have a source that outright says "Desv. is right, Corda is wrong." And I've got a lot more sources that are willing to say Corda than just the two online databases. The cop-out is just to say that sources disagree on the authority, but that seems like a disservice to the readers (and makes the question of what to put in the infobox awkward). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that is specifically for the species name. Corda is facially incorrect and the only reason he would be cited is in the incorrect data in Saccardo, further spread by IF. I cannot see any reason to cite Massee because if Desvaux's name is treated in Calostoma, there has been no new combinations made that could be cited. Can you quote me examples of places that specifically give the authority as "(Desv.) Mass." (as opposed to sensu citations?). Modern citations if at all possible: pre-early 20th century authorities can be notoriously sketchy. Circéus (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Here's one: [2] Sasata (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I unfortunately can't look at the Massee paper, but given the rest of citation is to Desvaux' work, I'm going to guess (given squeamish's comments about "crediting the reviser") that "(Desv.) Mass." are mostly mangled formating for what ought to be "Desv. emend. Mass.". This is, incidentally, not an authority format sanctioned by the ICN: emendation doesn't alter the actual authority. Circéus (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Did you figure out the citation for the Massee reference? Based on a name search for Calostoma in IF, it seems all of his relevant work was published in 1888 or 1891. His 1888 paper is available (but doesn't seem to mention cinnabarinum), but I can't find the 1891 ref (which I assume is "A monograph of the British Gasteromycetes" in Annals of Botany 4:13 pp. 1–103; frustratingly not available on Oxford Journals). Sasata (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
You linked his Bovista monograph. You're looking for this paper, A monograph of the genus Calostoma, Desv. (Mitremyces, Nees), which I seem to think has a free online copy around somewhere, too. My best guess for the reason for the parenthetical authority in some sources is that that paper syncretized (most of) Mitremyces with Calostoma by deeming M. lutescens sensu Schweinitz as equivalent to C. cinnabarinum. Of course, that was only partly true, and Burnap finished the cleanup job by pointing out that M. lutescens pro parte really was a distinct species, but also one that needed to live in Calostoma. The lutescens authority is pretty universally "(Schw.) Burnap", which makes sense. I'm not sure that what Massee did is enough to chance the authority for cinnabarinum, but I'm really, really not a botanical taxonomy expert. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Ah, ok, that paper I can access. I've sent a copy to Circeus (and you're welcome to it too if you don't have it already). Sasata (talk) 18:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I do, but thanks all the same! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

So I've seen the Massee paper now and it's definitely confirming my comments: the proper authority is Desv. for both the genus and the species (to be 100% accurate the species is based on Persoon' Scleroderma calostoma, but desvaux's name is a nomen novum, so he's still the author, but the correct name in another genus would use "calostoma" as the epithet). The only thing that's unclear in Massee is the part (p. 38) where he refers to M. lutescens as "the species on which [Desvaux's generic diagnosis] was founded". Either that is an error for C. cinnabarinum/S. Calostoma or he's referring to M. lutescens as being the same as Desvaux's species.

Final point is, Massee has no business being in the author citation for Calostoma's type species. Circéus (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. When I get the chance this evening, I'll clean up that part of the taxonomy section and fix the infobox. As to your curiosity regarding M. lutescens, there was a big mess with mislabeled reference specimens. C. lutescens in the modern sense is only M. lutescens pro parte, the rest of the 19th century reference collections were just really old, misidentified C. cinnabarinum, which Massee goes on about in a couple places. Things work the way you think they do! And, on a personal note, I'm so happy to have this particular bit of taxonomy all behind me now. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Also, Index Fungorum has been updated with the correct info. Circéus (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
As for the Sclerodermataceae/Calostomataceae issue, most recent papers avoid using family names and instead are relying on upper-level taxa defined by cladistics. For example, a recent paper doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2012.04109.x (see also this link, the same info in poster format) describes Calostoma as part of the "core Sclerodermatineae" (i.e. a suborder-equivalent of the Boletales), along with Scleroderma, Gyroporus, Pisolithus, and Astraeus. Calostomataceae doesn't seem to have any recent mentions in the literature, and it's not used by MycoBank, Index Fungorum, or the Dictionary, so that's good enough for me. About writing fungus articles faster, I have a text files with nicely formatted citations templates of all my field guides, textbooks, often-used websites, and articles I think I'll used more than once ... that saves a lot of time. Sasata (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Malaria

Rather than replacing the ref, why just not supplement it with your source? Legoktm (talk) 17:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Because two references are better than one? What happens if the easily-accessible ref goes down? Just because it's a paywall source is no reason to look down upon it. Legoktm (talk) 18:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I disagree that two references are better than one, if one does the job adequately. By that rationale, I could easily double or triple up almost every current citation in the article; would this make it a better article? If the easily accessible ref goes down (it's on Pubmed Central, so I highly doubt that will happen), someone will flag it and the reference will replaced. Sasata (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • (ec) @Legoktm, meh. I'm helping out with the good article review, and I don't see a problem with it. I was trying to verify Gay 2012, and I couldn't get a hold of it. If possible, I prefer one reference. It's more of a chore to verify one sentence if two sources are cited. But of course, one reference could temporarily go down. But I should go and continue udpating dengue fever now. Happy editing! Biosthmors (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Terminology

I think it would be a good idea to settle on either "spine fungus" or "tooth fungus" for hydnoid species (if only because we only have one at hydnoid fungus). A summary look over Google Scholar seems to indicate "tooth fungus" is the more common of the terms (though both are less common than hydnoid). Circéus (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I think "tooth fungus" is the better of the two for common usage; also, the Dictionary says hydnoid fungi are those "with a teeth-like hymenium". Sasata (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
no. I haven't gone further than the taxonomy section, soprry. I'm gonna try to get it done today. Circéus (talk) 19:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
On an unrelated note, could you figure out a place to list Clavicorona as a member? Its page puts it as an Auriscalpiaceae member, but it's not on that family page, while the situation surrounding it is only briefly discussed in Russulales (and it being briefly mentioned over at Clavariaceae isn't helping a bit). Circéus (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Especially since I couldn't solve my own Calostoma problems, I'm not sure I'm well-qualified to dig in here, but as far as I can tell, there's some disagreement, based on whether or not you agree with Walter Jülich's division of Clavicorona into that genus sensu stricto and the Artomyces. If you do, Artomyces is happily Russulales -> Auriscalpiaceae, and what remains of Clavicorona (which I think is monotypic) sure seems to be Agaricales -> Clavariaceae. But I'm not sure whether that's universally accepted. There are more than a few papers more recent than the 80s addressing A. pyxidatus (the type species, even) as C. pyxidata; maybe they didn't get the memo? And the online databases can't even approach agreement. IF has both genera in the Auriscalpiaceae; MB has Clavicorona in Agaricales, but is all on its own with Tricholomataceae of all things. On the heavy assumption that Jülich is unquestioned (and that I didn't bollocks this up any) that means our Artomyces and Russulales articles are correct, that Clavariaceae is correct in the text but not in the infobox, and that Clavicorona needs to be updated entirely. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't mind what is said either Russulales and Clavicorona, I just think that whatever is written in the genus article should be matched to something reasonably comprehensible in the next higher group (whether that group is decided to be Agaricales, Russulales or Auriscalpiaceae). I trust Sasata to make a reasonable decision, if only because he's more familiar with the overall literature. Circéus (talk) 03:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments are on the Auriscalpium vulgare talk page. Circéus (talk) 22:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Will work on those (and figuring out whazzup with Clavicorona) in the next while. Sasata (talk) 06:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I did what I can with Clavicorona (without spending more time than I currently have). There's not a lot in the current literature about this genus, and, as Squeamish Ossifrage noted above, many pubs still include Artomyces pyxidata (which I'm quite sure is incorrect). Sasata (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks....

for that - am trying to get a couple of aquilonia to plant in my garden. There is one at the Botanic Gardens in the city...or might ask nicely on flickr..to buff photos before FAC. The other one that would be good to buff is Omphalotus nidiformis, so beginning to buff that as well for the last bit. Some DYKs I am thinking of as well. O. japonicus to start with Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. Omphalotus is a small enough genus that with some concerted effort, a good topic would be feasible. I will try to add to nidiformis and japonicus, and perhaps try to make some headway with the others. BTW, there's quite a few decent nidiformis pics at MO, so it would be good to expand the text to fit some in :) Sasata (talk) 06:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I took a bunch of photos in '07 - eastertime (autumn) there were fruiting bodies everywhere all over Sydney. funny as I haven't seen it since. I'll look on my old hard drive too. I also took the cool ones in a darkend room (see commons) with the light on and then off :) The other one worth expanding is the blue mexicanus - cool colour and pic. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I just submitted an interlibrary loan request for the protolog of mexicanus; it's in Spanish so I'll be giving Google translate a workout when I get it. I had initially thought it might be difficult to find source material for japonicus, but am pleasantly surprised to see I was wrong ... just have to search under all of the synonyms! I think it'll be possible to push that one to FAC, if you're interested. The Redhead paper has a lot of good info we can use to fill out the taxonomy section. Sasata (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
We need to sort out whether it is japonicus or guepiniformis....but yeah, nice to buff up that one as well. A brace of omphaloti :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't see any indication if the 2006 conservation proposal was accepted or rejected ... maybe Circeus can help? Sasata (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure he'll see this page - the one I need nowish is O.K.Miller (1994) Mycol. helv. 6(2): 93....can't get it via my library :{ Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Can't help you with that one (immediately); try WP:RX? Sasata (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Thx - the colour of it really varies. In 2007 I saw so many of these all around Sydney and none since, though I didn't really go mushrooming the last 2-3 years. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

On the conservation issue, luckily for us (well me, anyway!) the Taxon issues on Ingenta's website have all conservation stuff in free access back to 2002. When looking for this kinda stuff, you want to find the "Report of the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi" that covers the proposal you want. These are published once every couple years I believe, or something like that. The one that interests us is Report 14 in volume 57, issue 2(May 2008), pp. 637-639 (JSTOR 25066033; for some reason the DOI doesn't seem to work for it):

"The committee readily voted to recommend conservation of the well-known and widely used Pleurotus japonicus over two obscure earlier synonyms. The first element of guepiniiformis is derived from the generic name Guepinia, and so the original spelling 'guepiniiformis' is correct under Art. 60.8 with Rec. 60G1.(a). The spelling 'guepiniformis' in the proposal was an error."

Cheers. Circéus (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Aaah thanks for that :) Fascinating bit in the Kawamura source where he's mucking around seeing how the fruiting bodies glow at different temperatures and writing about it... Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
You really should have a full look at Neda and Redhead's proposal. They points out that the correct date of publication of the name is 1910, not 1915 (as the wp. article incorrectly state) and discuss why and how the widespread incorrect citation happened. Circéus (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

TFA

This one is next ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Pictures

Random query. Have you ever tried to get pictures featured/compete in the WikiCup on that basis? Not one on the recent 8 final contenders participated on that basis, though I did notice about 5 pictures total from the other rounds. I commented on scoring at that page. I was thinking I might buy a nice camera to (probably mostly) hear people tell me my pictures were additions to the encyclopedia but not featured quality! Biosthmors (talk) 18:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in previous Wikicups I've submitted featured pics (mostly nominating others' pics, until the rules were change to disallow that, but also a couple of my own). I actually have a bunch that I was considering submitting this year, but never got around to doing so (will try again next year!). Sasata (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I submitted a couple but they were firmly squashed! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Russula emetica

This is a note to let the main editors of Russula emetica know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on November 28, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 28, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

A sickener mushroom photographed in Oneida County, New York, USA

Russula emetica, commonly known as the sickener, emetic Russula, or vomiting Russula, is a basidiomycete mushroom, and the type species of the genus Russula. It has a red, convex to flat cap up to 8.5 cm (3.3 in) in diameter, with a cuticle that can be peeled off almost to the centre. The gills are white to pale cream, and closely spaced. A smooth white stem measures up to 10.5 cm (4.1 in) long and 2.4 cm (0.9 in) thick. First described in 1774, the mushroom has a wide distribution in the Northern Hemisphere, where it grows on the ground in damp woodlands in a mycorrhizal association with conifers, especially pine. The mushroom's common names refer to the gastrointestinal distress they cause when consumed raw. The flesh is extremely peppery, but this offensive taste, along with its toxicity, can be removed by parboiling or pickling. Although it used to be widely eaten in Russia and eastern European countries, it is generally not recommended for consumption. There are many similar Russula species that have a red cap with white stem and gills, some of which can be reliably distinguished from R. emetica only by microscopic characteristics. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

First descriptions

Why did the first describer of Amanita gemmata (and in fact A. thiersii) not get the credit? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, Fries does get some "credit", as he's the parenthetical authority in A. gemmata (Fr.) Bertill. In the case of A. thiersii, Thiers originally named it as Amanita alba in 1957, but this was a homonym, previously used by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck in 1783. Sasata (talk) 16:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
As you pointed out on the GA page, Amanita thiersii needs quite a lot of work done on it before it will qualify for GA. As I am no longer pushed for time as I was in September and October, I propose to do quite a bit of work on it myself. With regard to the Taxonomy section, is it correct to say that Thiers described the fungus or were his actions more informal with Bas being responsible for its formal description? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I haven't seen the Bas publication, but you can see from Thiers 1957 that he provided a complete description, and I suspect Bas just suggested a new combination. (the Cyberliber links are a bit flaky depending on the time of day; if it doesn't work, try again later) Sasata (talk) 15:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Charles Thom

Hi Sasata, I'm most of the way through reviewing Charles Thom but have a few small suggestions on the form. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking on the review, I'll visit sometime today. Sasata (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Omphalotus

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Omphalotus japonicus

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Calostomal

We meet again! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 22:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Ann Bishop FAC review

Hey Sasata, I'm so sorry it took me forever to get to your comments at Ann Bishop's FAC but I've finally taken care of all of them. Would you mind taking a second look? Thank you so much for the review. Best, Keilana|Parlez ici 23:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Amanita thiersii GA review

Hi Sasata! I think I have acted according to all of your comments. Please turn up at the GA page quickly and resume the review. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 12:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't really think the article Amanita thiersii was ready to be put forward for GA. Since I took on its review, Sainsf has worked on it according to our suggestions and comments and I have done much work on it. I think it is much improved and it has now got to the stage where I would normally look at each criterion in turn and judge whether it was achieved. However, as I have been rather heavily involved in its improvement, I don't think it would be right for me to pass it, so I wondered if you would provide a second opinion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Sure, I'll have a look today. Sasata (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

For finishing second in the 2012 WikiCup...

Awarded to Sasata, 2012 WikiCup runner up! J Milburn and The ed17 16:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks JM and Ed for your work in judging the competition. Sasata (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Omphalotus nidiformis

I've put in an interlibrary loan request for the 1994 OK Miller article as Orange Agricultural library is a 4 hours drive....other than that, not sure what else to add. All input appreciated - also do you think the lights on/lights off image would be better for the taxobox? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I did find some stuff to add; will work on it this weekend. Do you mind if I: (a) list-define the refs; (b) put the synonyms in a collapsible box (to save vertical space) (c) capitalize the non-complete sentence image captions, per the guidelines, ya know :) Will reserve judgement on the taxobox image for later. Sasata (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • If the ref you're thinking of is from the Agricultural Gazette of New South Wales, I think our current Cleland 1916 covers that info (it's a digest of recent papers). Sasata (talk) 19:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The Current Cleland ref is from his 1934 monograph (which I have) - the Miller ref seems to suggest it might discuss things in more detail, though I wouldn't lose any sleep if I can't find it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Malaria

I made a mention of you and malaria here, FYI. I hope you're doing well. I look forward to the opportunity to continue verifying text-source integrity too. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that ... I'd be very interested in doing whatever needs to be done to work towards a possible publication. Am taking a short break from malaria to recharge my batteries and work on other stuff (mostly fungal), but will get back into it in a couple of weeks. Have also ordered a couple of books that will hopefully be useful sources. Sasata (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Sounds great. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The WikiProject: Good Articles Newsletter (December 2012)

The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter
Volume III, No. 3 – December 2012

For past newsletters click here

In This Issue


God of War FAC

I think I took care of what you brought up, but I wanna make sure. --JDC808 ♫ 05:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Furcifer nicosiai

Sasata, has this passed the bloat stage, or is it still subject to being shortened below the minimum? If it's long enough (and substantial enough), then I should probably add the red arrow and look for a new reviewer. Thanks for any advice you can give. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

  • The back-and-forth was getting annoying, so I just expanded the article myself with details from the original description. The length shouldn't be a problem now, but someone else should probably review it. Sasata (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

A. thiersii

Hello, Sasata. You have new messages at Talk:Amanita thiersii/GA1.
Message added Sainsf <^>Talk all words 10:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
In the A. thiersii GA the following couple of sentences occur. I don't have access to the source or a good understanding of the concepts involved. Are they sensible or are they contradictory? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • "In an analysis, both monokaryotic (one nucleus per cell) and dikaryotic (two nuclei per cell) strains were isolated from fruit bodies. All spores were found to be binucleate. For the monokaryotic strain, the suggestion of the experimenting team was that the second nucleus never migrates into the germ tube."

P. allenii

Damn, you're fast :) that was on my to-do list for this week, but you beat me to it. Thanks for all your awesome fungal work. I'll try to add on to it a bit later, as, from memory, there are a couple pre-formal description sources that meet RS that probably have valuable tidbits of information in them. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Heh, it goes pretty quickly when there's only 1 main source :) Any additional sources would be welcome (the article's at GAN now). Sasata (talk) 21:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

"quickfail criteria"

or large numbers of [citation needed], [citation needed], [clarification needed], or similar tags.

How is 1 tag now "large number"? --Niemti (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Also i can't find anything there about "many paragraphs lack citations, making it impossible to verify the information". Maybe you can help me find it.

But I see: If you "quick-fail" an article according to the above criteria, leave a short note explaining the major problems and inform the nominator.

Maybe we're looking at some other Wikipedia pages. --Niemti (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not. I can add a large number to the article, if you wish, to show you many places where inline citations are required, but I assumed that you'd be able to figure that out. Sasata (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it's anything like The reviewer added cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, POV, unreferenced or large numbers of [citation needed], [citation needed], [clarification needed], or similar tags., no? In other words: in fact no, you can't (and especially retroactively). --Niemti (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Large tracts of the article are unreferenced; this makes it impossible to verify the material in the article (see WP:Verify), and thus suitable for quickfailing. I could have added the citation needed tags immediately before I failed the article, but I thought you were an experienced editor who would be able to recognize where sources were needed. In retrospect, I shouldn't have assumed this, as I see you've nominated several other videogame articles that have similar deficiencies. Let me know if you need me to add citation needed tags to the article. Once the sourcing is up to par, it should be ready for re-nomination. Sasata (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Please actually read Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles#First things to look for. I could have added the citation needed tags immediately before I failed the article - no, you couldn't. --Niemti (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Sure I could. Do you need help with this? Sasata (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello world. --Niemti (talk) 23:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
From WP:GAN: "Before reading the article in detail, check it for immediate problems. If you believe a detailed review is premature, add your reasons to the review page and use the fail process;" I believed a detailed review was premature for reasons I have already explained. Not sure what the problem is here; add the required citations, and renominate. Sasata (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
@Niemti - think of it like this - before it gets GA status it will need all text referenced. This can be done with no time limit now before renomination, or in a mad dash once nominated. A couple of us would be happy to review once polished up. Another way of looking at it is that there are 400 or so articles needing review, don't you think it is fairer to prioritise review of those that have had alot of work and are fully or almost fully referenced and require minimal work for GA, rather than a lengthy review with lots of comments? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
"before it gets GA status it will need all text referenced" - it's not true. Also, nothing to do with quickfailing. --Niemti (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Niemti; it could be simply placed on hold. That is why the articles must go to the nomination procedure, rather than simply be assessed. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Tomcat, your track record at GAN hasn't been exactly stellar. I'm not sure you're the best judge of GAN nomination suitability (apologies in advance for what you may feel to be an insult). Sasata (talk) 13:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate I am late to the discussion, but I currently count five {{cn}}s on the article. They could all be sourced or the content removed within a week. Therefore I think quickfailing it is a little bit disruptive - the spirit of the rule to me is to catch when an article has substantial amounts of unreferenced content, which this one didn't. If an article doesn't quite reach GA, but could quickly with effort of the nominator, they should be given the chance to do so. I am happy to take over this GA review if consensus goes towards doing that. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
There may be only five citation tags currently, but I count at least 13 other instances where inline citations are needed (completely uncited paragraphs), meaning that there is a substantial amount of unreferenced content, and wholly unprepared for GA assessment. You are, of course, welcome to review it when the nominator sources the material or removes that content and returns the article to GAN. As for being disruptive, I could similarly argue that it is disruptive for a nominator to bring such an unprepared article to GAN, not apparently familiar with (or ignoring) the GA criteria, and wasting our collective time and scant reviewer resources. I prefer to assume good faith (the nominator simply made an error in judgement). Sasata (talk) 13:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
In your situation, I would summarise where precisely each bit of unsourced text is, adding each item of issue line by line in the GA review, and after sweeping the entire article, ask the nominator if they feel comfortable fixing all issues within a week. If they say no, fail it. If they say yes, put it on hold and give them a week to fix it. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for letting me know what you would do. Sasata (talk) 14:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Psilocybe aztecorum

This is a note to let the main editors of Psilocybe aztecorum know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on December 26, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 26, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegates Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you can change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Psilocybe aztecorum

Psilocybe aztecorum is a species of psilocybin mushroom in the Strophariaceae family. Known only from central Mexico, the fungus grows on decomposing woody debris, and is found in mountainous areas at elevations of 3,200 to 4,000 m (10,500 to 13,100 ft), typically in meadows or open, grassy forests associated with Hartweg's Pine. The mushrooms have convex to bell-shaped caps 1.5–2 cm (0.6–0.8 in) in diameter, set atop slender cylindrical stems that are up to 7.5 cm (3.0 in) long. The color of the caps changes with variations in hydration, and ranges from dark chestnut brown to straw yellow or whitish when dry. The species was first reported by French mycologist Roger Heim in 1956 as a variety of Psilocybe mexicana before he officially described it under its current name a year later. Named for its association with the Aztec people, P. aztecorum may have been one of the sacred mushroom species, or teonanácatl ("flesh of the gods"), reported in the codices of 16th-century Spanish chronicler Bernardino de Sahagún. The mushrooms are still used for spiritual ceremonies by Nahuatl Indians in the Popocatépetl region, although this traditional usage is waning. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Amphibian FAC

Thank you for looking in detail at the referencing at the Amphibian FAC. Are you happy with my responses? I guess you think I should have done better after your detailed instruction during the Bivalvia FAC. Actually, quite a lot of the referencing in Amphibian dated back to before that time because I started working on the article in the original Core Contest in March at a time when I had only recently been introduced to citation templates. I hope to do better next time!

Incidentally, my Common toad article is currently the featured article on the front page and I am surprised how many people choose to maul it about. A few of the edits are sensible however. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Psilocybe allenii

1=HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC) 16:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts re "abstract"

With abstract strategy game wlink'd as strategy board game, and "Abstract strategy game" as genre link in a game's Infobox, I'm wondering if word "abstract" is really necessary or desirable in lead text on games articles. (Reason: for general readership, it may be read as a geeky term that instantly connotes "difficult to learn or play", even though that is not what it means of course. I'm guessing that connotation is possible due to existence of term "abstract math", which of course isn't for everyone, unlike games.) What are your thoughts. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, you must have the wrong # ... Sasata (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
(Not meant for you, my mistake.) Sorry, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Furcifer angeli, Furcifer balteatus

Sasata, you commented that the original double hook on this DYK submission was uninteresting (endemic to Madagascar). Hahc21 came up with single hooks the next day, and after over two weeks of no further action, I took a look at it hoping to get it moving again, and found issues with both of them. Can you please take a look and see whether my objections are appropriate, and whether the sources are germane and/or reliable. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


Laevistrombus canarium FA

Hey Sasata, long time no see! I know I've made a lot of changes to Laevistrombus canarium lately. I noticed some critical problems in the article that I had to correct no matter what. But I'm finished now. You may begin the reviewing process if you feel like! It will be a pleasure working with you once more.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll begin sometime today or tomorrow. I'm especially critical and nitpicky at FACs, so I hope you'll still think it's a pleasure working with me after I post my review :) Sasata (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
From what I've seen so far, your criticism is always reasonable and constructive, even when you're more incisive or nitpicky. That is the kind of attitude that motivates people! We need more of this in wikipedia, especially in certain areas. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


— ΛΧΣ21 is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

— ΛΧΣ21 05:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas


Tomcat (7) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Tomcat (7) 14:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Fungal Christmas and Yeasty Holidays!

Hope you have a safe and happy one, Robert! I hope Santa knows what fruit bodies are. ;-) Rcej (Robert) – talk 04:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Xmas

Merry antipodean Xmas
hope yours is/was fun, and you had a good turkey :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Four Award

Four Award
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Auriscalpium vulgare. LittleMountain5 17:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Great work! LittleMountain5 17:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Mushroom from Brazil

Hey Sasata, I took these pictures today! Beautiful mushrooms, don't you think? These are from Serra da Mantiqueira, Serra Negra municipality, Brazil. Any ideas on the genus or species? --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Daniel — all mushrooms are beautiful in their own way! For your examples I'd say genus–probably Lepiota; species–impossible to tell. I sure wish I was photographing mushrooms in Brazil; instead, I just came in from shoveling a couple of inches of snow off the sidewalk and driveway ... Sasata (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Volvariella bombycina
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Volvariella bombycina1.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Elephant FAC

All finished. LittleJerry (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Finished. LittleJerry (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Done again. LittleJerry (talk) 05:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Formating all clear. LittleJerry (talk) 06:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 starting soon

Hi there; you're receiving this message because you have previously shown interest in the WikiCup. This is just to remind you that the 2013 WikiCup will be starting on 1 January, and that signups will remain open throughout January. Old and new Wikipedians and WikiCup participants are warmly invited to take part in this year's competition. (Though, as a note to the more experienced participants, there have been a few small rules changes in the last few months.) If you have already signed up, let this be a reminder; you will receive a message with your submissions' page soon. Please direct any questions to the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! J Milburn 19:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pittosporum kirkii, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canopy (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) 11:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

3D sequencing 2 Protein Structure

Some highly distinguished scholars strongly disagree on the notion that its use is restricted to membrane protein structure prediction... cheers & have a great 2013! David P Minde (talk) 15:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

New fungus

Hello,

just a message that another fungus is ready :). I am not sure if the referencing format is acceptable, and whether there should be a cladogram. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 18:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Here the link for the DYK nomination.--Tomcat (7) 19:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Looks like it needs a copyedit, and I have some extra sources to use. Will start working on it later today! Sasata (talk) 19:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Oops, I hope I did not cause any edit conflicts. I stay away from the page for now :)--Tomcat (7) 19:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I have nominated Lenzites warnieri. Feel free to add yourself as co-nominator. Thanks again for your work! Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Tomcat, there are some problems with the article I noticed when copyediting ... statements that don't make sense. Some I can fix because I can get the sources and figure out what the article is trying to say, but most sources I don't have (easy) access to. I can work on this, but it will take some time, and my wiki plate is pretty full right now. I'd highly recommend withdrawing the GAN until this can be sorted out. Sasata (talk) 14:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, sorry, will remove the banner. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 15:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks – I'll let you know when everything makes sense, but it might take up to a couple of weeks. Sasata (talk) 15:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Stalk-eyed fly/GA1

Sasata, can you take a look at this review and see what's still needed? I get the impression that you meant to do a more thorough review once the initial issues were addressed, and there's a complete set of "done", as far as I can see. It would be nice to get this one moving again. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, it's on my "list" (along with many other things)... thanks for the reminder! Sasata (talk) 02:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome. It's too easy for things to get lost in the depths of the push-down stack. ;-) There are a lot of reviews over a month old just now... BlueMoonset (talk) 02:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Cabbage

Hi Sasata! If you have some time, would you mind taking a look over Cabbage with an eye towards a near-term FAC run? It's some left-over business from 2012 for me (no WikiCup points :(), but I'd like to see it "finished"! Thanks in advance, if you have the time/interest, Dana boomer (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll put it on my list of things to do this weekend. BTW, I have a lonely mushroom FAC if you feel inclined to return the favor (no obligation though!), or need some excitement :-) Sasata (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Agaricus fuscofibrillosus

Hi Sasata, I just wrote an article on Agaricus fuscofibrillosus. If you have a minute look it over and see if there is anything you can fix/add. Thanks!

Alan Rockefeller (Talk - contribs) 10:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Good changes, thanks for going over that. Here is another one I wrote today: Lepiota castaneidisca Alan Rockefeller (Talk - contribs) 04:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Nice job, Alan! Glad to have another fungus writer...btw, you're nom'd. ;) Rcej (Robert) – talk 06:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, looking good! I will continue working on this one over the next while and submit it to GAN ... WP:Wikiproject Fungi will soon have over 200 Good articles! Sasata (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Elephant FAC

Sasta has finished his review and now supports it. LittleJerry (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you meant this for someone else (and please spell my name correctly!) Sasata (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Carlsen's year off school

I've left details at the talk page here (and I also replied on my talk page to your message). Hope that helps. Do ask if anything more is needed. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Would you double-check my first ever GA review

Hi Sasata, I see you've done a lot of GA review work, especially in the life sciences. Would you please double-check my first-ever GA review: Talk:Carnotaurus/GA1? I'd very much appreciate it, cheers! Zad68 18:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The review looks fine to me; good job for a first effort. Did you check any citations for accurate representation of sources/plagiarism/close paraphrasing? If so, this should be indicated in the review. I also noticed several duplicate links in the article; you may want to consider installing Ucucha's duplink tool if you're going to be reviewing regularly (hope you are, good reviewers are in short supply!). Sasata (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks very much! Coming from someone with your level of experience, the feedback means a lot to me. I have been enjoying doing the GA review work so far and plan to do more. Please let me know if you have any specific suggestions or criticisms. Cheers... Zad68 22:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Elephant source

Do you know the proper way to cite this source with a template? LittleJerry (talk) 00:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Carpenter, K. (2006). "Biggest of the big: a critical re-evaluation of the mega-sauropod Amphicoelias fragillimus." In Foster, J.R. and Lucas, S.G., eds., 2006, Paleontology and Geology of the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin 36: 131–138.

Is this a book chapter? If so, try this: {{cite book |author=Carpenter, K. |year=2006 |chapter=Biggest of the big: a critical re-evaluation of the mega-sauropod ''Amphicoelias fragillimus'' |editor-last=Foster, J.R. and Lucas, S.G. (eds.) |title=Paleontology and Geology of the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation |publisher=New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science |volume=36 |pages=131–138}}

which produces ...

Carpenter, K. (2006). "Biggest of the big: a critical re-evaluation of the mega-sauropod Amphicoelias fragillimus". In Foster, J.R. and Lucas, S.G. (eds.) (ed.). Paleontology and Geology of the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation. Vol. 36. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science. pp. 131–138. {{cite book}}: |editor-last= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)

The output isn't exactly the same as you requested, (I also took out "Bulletin" from the publisher field) but the format look ok to me. Sasata (talk) 00:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It's actually a journal (or at least a periodical), so you should use cite journal. Ucucha (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
It looks like it would be cited differently than a typical journal article. LittleJerry (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey Ucucha, good to see you around! I can't find evidence that this is a periodical, it seems to me it's a one-time publication (the only instances I can find are different chapters in this 2006 printing); do you know otherwise? Sasata (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I have articles from this journal from volume 16 (1999), volume 44 (2008), and a bunch of others. See also the Museum's bibliography at [3]. LittleJerry, I don't see any reason to cite it differently than a normal journal article. Ucucha (talk) 01:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Ah, if it's part of a series, I'd use cite journal and put the journal title in the "=series=" parameter, like so:
Carpenter, K. (2006). Foster, J.R. and Lucas, S.G. (eds.) (ed.). "Paleontology and Geology of the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation". New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 36. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science: 131–138. {{cite journal}}: |chapter= ignored (help); |editor-last= has generic name (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link) (Jerry, note the "Cope, 1878", which is part of the title) Sasata (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Added. Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Lepiota castaneidisca (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Nucleus
List of Lepiota species (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Altai

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Strobilurus tenacellus

Orlady (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Lepiota castaneidisca

Harrias talk 16:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Minor ce

Hello again. I added a another bit of info to the "Warfare" section. I hope theres nothing wrong with the prose. LittleJerry (talk) 01:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Spotcheck

Thanks for all your help on the elephant article. If nobody gives it a random spotcheck within the next few days, could you do it? Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I can do that. I plan to revisit a couple of others FACs I've already commented on tonight, and I'll drop by after that. Sasata (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I looked, but didn't see any request for a spotcheck. Looks like you still have some text massaging to do to meet Sandy's prose standards :) Ping me if a spotcheck is required. Sasata (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I fixed the flow problems she highlighted and listed the article for another copyedit. I know a spotcheck isn't being called for now but its been six months since my last and I would rather get it over with. LittleJerry (talk) 01:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I arranged some more text that will hopefully solve flow problem. Hope its still in shape. Do you think I should just leave it alone and wait for the verdict? LittleJerry (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Sesame Street research FAC

Hey Sasata, wanted to let you know that I addressed your feedback at this article's FAC [4]. I'm a little worried about it, since it's gotten no support so far, and that was exactly why it failed its first FAC. I'd appreciate you taking another look. I see from your talk page that you came in second in last year's Wikicup. I'm impressed. Any reason why you're not competing again this year? Just curious; it's my first time out and I'm still not sure if it's worth my time and effort. Thanks, I appreciated your comments at FAC. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Christine, I was just in the middle of typing up my next set of comments for you :-) About the WikiCup, the signups are open until the end of January, and I'm a habitual procrastinator! Actually, I'll have some busy months this year, and am not sure if I can be as competitive as previously (and when I play, I generally play to win), but will probably succumb to the temptation as it's a good incentive to work on the miles-long list of articles I want to improve. Sasata (talk) 06:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Sasata, here's an update: as you probably already know, this FAC failed, so after waiting the obligatory two-weeks, I have re-submitted it for its third FAC. I'm still worried about it failing again due to lack of support, so I'd appreciate you taking a look at it. [5]]. Yah, I'm a good procrastinator, too, which is why I love the weekends, which give me a little time to catch up on stuff like laundry and editing. And yah, I'm still in WikiCup. I was hoping I'd earn 100 points with this FAC before the second round starts, but it doesn't look like it's gonna happen. Fortunately, I think I'll earn enough points to move on anyway. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lenzites warnieri, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Annual (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) 11:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Thanks

This user helped promote Charles Thom to good article status.

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your editorial contributions to Charles Thom, which has recently become a GA. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Sasata (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

One thing leads to another....

Having realised that List of brightest stars is laid out with a parameter not like any list in any star guide I've seen (splitting the star systems seen as single stars with the naked eye into components), I've gone ahead and suggested a rejig at Request for comment: Listing individual components of stars which are seen as single points from earth...how often at FACs we end off finding tangents...Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Good you're getting this sorted out. I know all about tangents ... last night I set out to do some work on a backburner article I'm prepping for GA/FAC, fell in the rabbithole, and ended up adding 10 articles to my "To-do" list! Will it ever end? Sasata (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

copyedit

Are youn going to be able to copyedit the article soon? LittleJerry (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Probably not, there's too many other things I have to do. Sasata (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Laevistrombus canarium FAC

The Gourmet Macaque
User:Sasata, due to your marvelous work at the Laevistrombus canarium FAC, I'm awarding you this Gourmet Macaque. It is bringing you a delicious dish of dog conch with cherry-tomatoes and lettuce. This is a reminder of the funniest moment of the review in my humble opinion! =) Working with you was a pleasure once again, even with all the nitpicking. I knew from the start that it would be constructive and helpful nitpicking ;). I've learned A LOT from this FAC, mostly thanks to you! I hope we can work together once again in future GAs and FACs! Best wishes, Daniel Cavallari (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Ha! Thanks Daniel, it was a pleasure to nitpick your snail article. Am happy that the Gastorpods project finally got its first FA, and hope it won't be long before I see another at FAC ... Sasata (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Verpa bohemica

This is a note to let the main editors of Verpa bohemica know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on February 9, 2013. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 9, 2013. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegates Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you can change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Verpa bohemica

Verpa bohemica is a species of fungus in the Morchellaceae family, commonly known as the "early morel" or the "wrinkled thimble-cap". The species was first described in the scientific literature by the Czech physician and mycologist Julius Vincenz von Krombholz in 1828; bohemica refers to Bohemia (now a part of the Czech Republic) where Krombholz originally collected the species. The mushroom has a pale yellow or brown thimble-shaped cap that has a surface wrinkled and ribbed with brain-like convolutions. The cap hangs from the top of a lighter-colored, brittle stem that measures up to 12 cm (4.7 in) long. It is one of several species known informally as a "false morel". In the field, the mushroom is reliably distinguished from the true morels on the basis of cap attachment: V. bohemica has a cap that hangs completely free from the stem. Although widely considered edible, consumption is generally not advised due to reports of poisoning in susceptible individuals. Poisoning symptoms include gastrointestinal upset and lack of muscular coordination. V. bohemica is found in northern North America, Europe, and Asia. It fruits in early spring, growing on the ground in woods following the snowmelt. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Dromedary

Hi! I wanted your help with Dromedary, you know, the closed FAC. I want to make it proper for renomination. Could you please guide me where to ask for a review or copyedit? Is Peer Review a right choice? Please help. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 08:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sainsf. I'd recommend rereading your recent FAC and GANs, and note all the specific advice that's been given in those, then carefully go through the Dromedary article to see if any of the suggestions apply. After that, enlist the help of the guild of copyeditors, explaining that you would like to submit for FAC, and need assistance to raise the prose to a professional level. As an alternative to this last step, you might want try asking Miniapolis directly; she did a nice copyedit quite recently for the Laevistrombus canarium FAC and so would be familiar with the standards required. When that is completed, drop me a note and I can take a final check before your next submission. Sasata (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I've had a bit of a look - yes some work is needed. I've started dropping some ideas on the talk page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Sasata and Casliber. I shall take your advice and let you know about the article. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 10:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Qeshm FAC

Hi Sasata! Thanks for your feedback. Mikenorton has responded to your comments at the Qeshm FAC. ceranthor 16:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Elephant again

Cas and John have done some more copyedits. You may want to take another look. LittleJerry (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

So what are your thoughts on the prose now? LittleJerry (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Sandy has struck her oppose. I think all that is needed is one last look. LittleJerry (talk) 20:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I haven't opposed, so I shouldn't be holding up anything. I think it'll be promoted soon now. Sasata (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot

Thank you for this. I really appreciate the compliment. --John (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Sesame Street research FAC

Hi Sasata, I was finally able to address your comments at this FAC. [6] Thanks for your great input, and please let me know what you think. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on the AFT5 Request for Comment

Hey Sasata - this is to notify you that there is a discussion starting on the Article Feedback RfC talkpage that has ramifications for the RfC itself. Your input is much appreciated :). Thanks! and apologies if I've missed anyone Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for Mycena aurantiomarginata

Four Award
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Mycena aurantiomarginata. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Message

Thanks for the improvements on Atheniella, Aphroditeola, and Naiadolina. I am drafting a few more while stuck at home because of a faulty gas fireplace. Are you anywhere in eastern Ontario or western Quebec? Reply privately if you want (or not at all).Heliocybe (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Heliocybe, very happy to see you contributing to Wikipedia again! Mycenoid fungi are an interest of mine, so it's my pleasure to add what I can to these pages. I'm in Saskatoon, several months away from seeing any interesting mushrooms. Sasata (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2013 WikiCup!

Hello, Sasata, and welcome to the 2013 WikiCup! Your submissions' page is here. The competition begins at midnight UTC. The first round will last until the end of February, at which point the top 64 scorers will advance to the second round. We will be in touch at the end of every month, and signups are going to remain open until the end of January; if you know of anyone else who may like to take part, please let them know! A few reminders:

  • The rules can be found here. There have been a few changes from last year, which are listed on that page.
  • Anything you submit must have been nominated and promoted in 2013, and you need to have completed significant work upon it in 2013. (The articles you review at good article reviews does not need to have been nominated in 2013, but you do need to have started the review in 2013.) We will be checking.
  • If you feel that another competitor is breaking the rules or abusing the competition in some way, please let a judge know. Please do not remove entries from the submissions' pages of others yourself.
  • Don't worry about calculating precisely how many points everything is worth. The bot will do that. The bot may occasionally get something wrong- let a judge know, or post on the WikiCup talk page if that happens.
  • Please try to be prompt in updating submissions' pages so that they can be double-checked.

Overall, however, don't worry, and have fun. It doesn't matter if you make the odd mistake; these things happen. Questions can be asked on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 10:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20→Archive 23
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sasata/Archive_18&oldid=1143367465"