User talk:Sasata/Archive 10

Thanks so much for your comments, myself and Paul have hopefully addressed the issues you raised which were holding back the article from being GA standard. Please let me know if there are still things which need fixing :) Again, thanks for taking your time to do the review Jebus989^✰ 20:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping; I've been watching the improvements in the background. I'll have a thorough read-through again later tonight and let you know if there's any other concerns. Sasata (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed the second lot of issues hopefully, thanks again Jebus989^✰ 14:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks to you both for your hardwork on this article. Great job! --Paul (talk) 20:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sasata, thanks for your comments. You'll ironically find that was indeed the only section with some Copy-edit issues. Anyway, I went through the entire article just in case and fixed some things. Please check back at the FAC page. Thank you :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 23:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty I will ask someone not involved in the project, but I honestly don't understand the problem with your "new additions" lol, maybe I'm just not such an English whiz :p. Care to explain a bit? Thanks :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Three spelling mistakes, one improper contraction use (explained previously). That's why you need a copyeditor. Sasata (talk) 01:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

On 3 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Phallus calongei, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 06:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure if you have been keeping up with nominating your WP:FOUR-eligible articles so i am encouraging you to do so.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure- I'll get to this tomorrow evening some time. J Milburn (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that worked out a surprisingly busy weekend! In any case, nice work. That would be a brilliant candidate for what valued pictures should be; despite the rarity and EV, it's not at the level of FP, but still, to my eyes, warrants recognition. I'll add it to the portal now. J Milburn (talk) 11:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Well... jeez Louise, I had to at least try to one up you ;) Rcej (Robert) - talk 03:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Posting a counter-alt soon ... Sasata (talk) 03:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

grrr Rcej (Robert) - talk 03:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

You should be happy we're presenting fungal trivia to mankind in the most accurate way possible :) (p.s. didya see that Phallus calongei pic? Cool, or what?) Sasata (talk) 04:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Beyond cool... its viagrish! ;) Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help with this, I'll do a final check in the next couple of days, and then throw it to the wolves Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

On 7 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Aseroe coccinea, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that although the fungus Aseroe coccinea was characterized in 1989, its validation as a species was delayed until 2007 because the initial description was not in Latin? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on November 9, 2010. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 9, 2010. If you think that it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 17:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

 

Geastrum triplex is an inedible species of fungus belonging to the genus Geastrum, or earthstar fungi. First described in 1840 as Geaster triplex, several authors have suggested that Geastrum indicum, described in 1832, is the legitimate name for the species. Immature fruit bodies are spherical—somewhat resembling puffballs with pointed beaks—and are partially or completely buried in the ground. As the fungus matures, the outer layer of tissue (the exoperidium) splits into four to eight pointed segments which spread outwards and downwards, lifting and exposing the spherical inner spore sac. The spore sac contains the gleba, a mass of spores and fertile mycelial tissue that when young is white and firm, but ages to become brown and powdery. The species is the largest of the earthstar fungi, with a tip to tip length of an expanded mature specimen reaching up to 12 centimeters (4.7 in). Geastrum triplex is a common and widespread species found in the detritus and leaf litter of hardwood forests in many parts of the world, including Asia, Australasia, Europe, and both North and South America. Fruit bodies have been analyzed chemically to determine their lipid content, and various chemical derivatives of the fungal sterol ergosterol have been identified. The fungus has a history of use in the traditional medicines of native North America and China. (more...)

I just wanted to let you know that I have put up three more fossil fungi articles. They are at Appianoporites, Margaretbarromyces, and Quatsinoporites. I also have submitted them for a dyk... --Kevmin § 00:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool! I'll read them and copyedit soon. I still plan to push all of these fossil fungi to GA, but there's just so many interesting distractions in this place (!) so it may take a while. Coincidentally, G. triplex (see message above) got picked for TFA, and I've been working on a fossil earthstar Geastrum tepexensis that should be ready to go "live" soon. Sasata (talk) 01:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations on yet another masterpiece (Geastrum triplex) to FA status. And thanks again for all your help in reviewing my tracheal intubation article a couple of months back. Your assistance has been invaluable! Cheers, DiverDave (talk) 14:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm glad your last "trial by fire" wasn't too traumatic, and am looking forward to seeing you back at FAC again. Sasata (talk) 14:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't understand, is it species or synonym? Can I del it from synonyms list of Waitea circinata? Some advice? --Adept Ukraine (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Tough call. Are you European or American? MycoBank lists them as synonyms, they reflect North American naming tendencies. Index Fungorum considers them separate species; they typically go with European preferences for species names.W. nuda is a European species, so I went with Index Fungorum, but digging into the literature would be needed to help resolve this—but even then it might not answer the question :) I'll look around a bit more later and see if I can come up with a more definitive answer. Sasata (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I am European so I would go with European:) But I'll wait results from your digging. Thanks in advance:) I found only this http://www.smg.ethz.ch/MycologiaHelvetica/Cl%8emen%8don90-4-1.pdf :( --Adept Ukraine (talk) 23:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey Sasata, just noticed that the ISBN you use in Kirk PM, Cannon PF, Minter DW, Stalpers JA. (2008). Dictionary of the Fungi (10th ed.). Wallingford, UK: CABI. p. 728. ISBN 978-85199-826-8. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) is wrong... (try clicking it) it should be 9780851998268 instead (dashes make no difference apparently). There are quite a few to correct, but I imagine that someone with WP:AWB could sort it out in not that long. Congrats on your first pic by the way, hopefully it'll be the first of many! SmartSE (talk) 22:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Argh. Yes, there will be a few to correct... where does a guy to go to make large-scale AWB requests like these? Sasata (talk) 22:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Err dunno, maybe ask at Wikipedia:Bot requests or Rich Farmbrough or Rjwilmsi and somebody will be able to fix it. SmartSE (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll do it. J Milburn (talk) 23:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks JM! My watchlist is suddenly as long as my arm! Sasata (talk) 00:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sasata,

Could you please correct the spelling of the title of the Kalaharituber page? I've corrected the content but don't know how to change the banner. thanks Trappem (talk) 18:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC) trappem

Done! Thanks for pointing out the mistake. For future reference, the "move" tab at the top of the page is used to perform this function. Sasata (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds brilliant- let me know when you want the review :) I do recognise that this is more your article than mine, but I do have some attachment to it because of creation and DYK. J Milburn (talk) 01:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I've made a few fixes and left some thoughts at Talk:Lactarius volemus#Pre-FAC review. J Milburn (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy to be the lead nominator- I have nothing I intend to nominate at FAC before this one. It's looking great now- the short paragraphs would do well to be merged somewhere; I deliberately avoided mentioning them in my review, due to the fact it is something for which we have both criticised the other in the past! Hopefully it will be an uncontroversial nomination. Due you want me to nominate? If so, I'd be happy to do so tomorrow. J Milburn (talk) 02:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The new additions look solid. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lactarius volemus/archive1. J Milburn (talk) 11:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I'm not wildly active in the nomination. Coursework is taking up most of my free time... J Milburn (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

No apologies required, I enjoy fixing articles and responding to reviewer comments anyway :) Sasata (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

You know instead of trying to demote everything I nominate, I would appreciate it if you would give me the same courtesy you do here.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 08:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure the FAC community would appreciate it if you had your articles proofread by an experienced copyeditor before submitting to FAC, like the example you gave. Bringing poorly-prepared articles to FAC drains limited reviewer time. Sasata (talk) 08:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not I have your support, I have addressed all the comments you mentioned. So please, cross them out, add more or both. Thanks.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 08:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. So I re-checked the article for grammar and I find it reads quite smoothly now (Don't roll your eyes :P). Anyways, look, I don't want fights, so please just work with me here. Please check back and cross out what was fixed and take another look. Thanks.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 18:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi again Sasata. An independent copy-editor (Legolas) has fixed up the article. You told me to let you know and that you would think of reconsidering. Please check back and see if it was addressed. Thanks!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 06:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Urceola. Since you had some involvement with the Urceola redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

  Hello! Your submission of Psilocybe semilanceata at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 06:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sasata... thanks for your work in reviewing my GA nomination of the Hans Freeman article, and for its promotion. I appreciated your comments, I believe they have helped to make the article stronger. FYI, I do agree with the objection about the WP:CRYSTAL statement (that you struck); IIRC it comes from one of the Hambley articles, but I have not added the cross-ref as I haven't yet re-located the source. But, I do plan to keep looking. Anyway, I just wanted to stop by to express my gratitude. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 12:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

You're quite welcome ... I've done some protein crystallography myself and was pleased to have a chance to review an article about one of the pioneers of the technique. Sasata (talk) 15:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

He certainly was a significant protein crystallographer, and the state of the article when I found it (diff) did not do him justice. I know it is missing a photo - I've been trying to get one - but are there others missing in your opinion for it to be considered for FA. I have little experience of the FA process, but I see that you have, and I would welcome your opinion. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) As he's dead, you can make a fair use claim on any photos you find of him (stupid but it's because we couldn't make our own portrait for obvious reasons). The one in this obituary would be good for example. Let me know if you need a hand with the fair use rationale, but it will be pretty similar to the one I used for the image in Herman Phaff. (Nice work by the way) SmartSE (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added a few suggestions to the talk page. Sasata (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I have previously emailed the USyd Chemistry School for a photo, but got no response... perhaps I should try again, before pursuing the fair use approach, but I will bear it in mind. I'll comment on other suggestions at the talk page. Regards. EdChem (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

On 22 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Psilocybe semilanceata, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Psilocybe semilanceata (pictured) is the world's most common psychoactive mushroom? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

All the points in the FAC have been fixed now. Thanks for your your time reviewing this article by the way.Alexikoua (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome; I'll revisit the FAC later tonight. Sasata (talk) 18:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

After The Story of Miss Moppet was promoted at FAC, it was discovered that the primary contributor had closely paraphrased or copied many sentences in many articles, and that in some cases facts presented were not backed up by the references cited. The user was indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user - for more details, please see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime.

Truthkeeper88, with help from Ruhrfisch, has since made sure that the language used in Miss Moppet does not closely paraphrase or copy that in the original sources, and checked almost all of the sources used to make sure the facts cited are backed up by the sources. We are now asking all editors who contributed to the FAC to please review the article and comment at Talk:The Story of Miss Moppet#Post-FAC cleanup review comments on any concerns or issues they have with the current cleaned-up version of the article. Thanks in advance for any help, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

 

Hi Sasata,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Yellow mite (Tydeidae), Lorryia formosa.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on November 26, 2010. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2010-11-26. howcheng {chat} 18:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, you get two in a row. File:Chlorophyllum rhacodes LC0093.jpg will follow on November 27. howcheng {chat} 18:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Groovy! I will tidy up the containing articles. Sasata (talk) 18:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sasata, so I know you've written 22 FA's and you are a really awesome writer, so I was really hoping you can help me with this small issue. "All I Want for Christmas Is You" had allot of support and oppose and failed the nomination. It has received independent copy-editing, but it needs more. I have 2 weeks to wait, can you please in these days perform a copy-edit on it? It really won't take you long and really isn't that bad now. Please? :) thanks.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Hi, sorry, but I'll have to decline. My wiki time is limited and I prefer to spend it on topics that interest me. As for not taking much time, check out my ongoing pre-FAC review of Betelgeuse; that article was also in good shape before I started :) I prefer spending time on articles about science, so I'd be happy to oblige you with a copyedit if you'd like to bring an article about an organism to FAC (I suppose Mariah Carey is an organism... but you know what I mean). Good luck! Sasata (talk) 04:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Wow, hahahah I don't think I'd be able to find that on a level-C article lol :). Hmmm, well thanks for explaining it to me, I understand. Unfortunately, my sole purpose on Wikipedia is Mariah Carey so I don't think I'll be doing science articles ;). Do you know anyone who might be able to help? But someone who is really good at grammar and stuff? I really am desperate lol. Thank you :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 05:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• I think your best bet is to check the FACs of all the album-related FAs promoted in the last year or so, and ask those people involved (if they'd help with c/e, or who they might know that would be willing to do so). It is there that you're most likely to find someone whose interest base matches your copyediting desires. Sasata (talk) 05:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Alrighty I'll do that, thank you! :). Hope to see your comments (and possible support) in 2 weeks :P--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 07:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for welcoming, friend. I'm new to this WikiProject and gradually learning about different species. I require a little help. How can I choose a nice article to start with? Please help. Thanks,--Sainsf<^> (talk) 14:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't have fungi in my garden (I have a tiny garden, growing chillis and beans!) but I like learning and watching them. I'm interested in such things. I usually like to develop stub articles with much links on the web to do with. I love creating articles consisting flora and fauna, mostly. Currently I'm creating an article on the Plain zebra species Selous Zebra (Equus quagga borensis). I keep working for various wikiprojects, but liked the fungi project the most. I would like to work on it much. --Sainsf<^> (talk) 15:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. I left the editor in question a note and said you were the person to discuss it with if (s)he still disagreed. J Milburn (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe a non-admin is able to move over redirects which have no page history (as in, the one and only edit to the page is to create the redirect) but I'm not great on technical stuff like that... I will have another chat with the editor. J Milburn (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

That's true; non-admins can move over redirects that haven't been edited. Ucucha 00:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, that's good to know. Sasata (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

On 28 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Staheliomyces, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that stingless bees put the slimy spore mass of the fungus Staheliomyces cinctus (pictured) into their pollen baskets? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

 

Hi Sasata,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Miesmuscheln-2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on November 29, 2010. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2010-11-29. howcheng {chat} 10:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

A bit misleading comment when you reverted my edit, I removed a blank line, not added whitespace. It didn't solve the problem but it seems that you have fixed it now, thanks! 85.11.25.101 (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for the misleading edit summary, I didn't see clearly until after I saved that you were trying to fix the same thing. Sasata (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey Sasata! We are hoping to start a new Mammal Collaboration soon, so if you would go see the collaboration page and vote, and then work with us on the article that would be great! Thanks! The Arbiter^★_★^★ 15:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I've started a bit of work for a future List of Marasmiaceae genera, and came acros info regarding Calathella. It would seem most recent research place it (or at least the marine species) near Nia. Matheny (2006) called that family Lachnellaceae (=Niaceae; Boudier's original publication is invalid under art. 18.4, but I can't check for later validating reuse). In any case, we might have to move the genus out of Marasmiaceae. Circéus (talk) 22:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you mean, I saw Sulzbacher's explanation while buffing up the page. If you wait for long enough, someone will do some more molecular work ... :P Good idea with the list page, I was planning to do that that sometime myself.

Of course, the key is the placement of the type, which is as of yet unknown, but it does appear that none of the species studied molecularly are in Marasmiaceae. Circéus (talk) 03:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Am I a bad boy for sniggering at the thought that Singer might have named Epicnaphus so it would sound like "epic snafu"? Circéus (talk) 07:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Mycology is serious bizness, I doubt Rolf had such nonsense on his mind. Speaking of which, I found out the other day that Boletellus ridiculus is an actual name for a species. Still trying to figure out a DYK hook for that and Cystoderma superbum... Sasata (talk) 07:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Wrong link (MycoBank is v. annoying for that). You wanted MB436421 . And I know he didn't have that in mind, but the similarity is still giggle-worty. And then you got the genus Damnxanthodium and Armillaria nabsnona (named to "make it easier on everyone and name the species for what we already knew about it."). Circéus (talk) 18:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Those don't have the aura of mystery of Lepilemur tymerlachsonorum. Ucucha 18:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, it's me again! I'm still going through the list, and hitting Micromphale, Ainsworth and Bisby seem not to recognize it (I can only get a snippet, not full page view) and most molecular evidence I unearthed appears to place the type firmly within Gymnopus. Circéus (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

page 425: Micromphale Gray (1821) nom. rej. = Marasmiellus fide Antonin et al. (Mycotaxon 63:359, 1997) A proposal to reject Micromphale against Marasmiellus has not been published. Sasata (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a no to me. What of Phaeolimacium? Everybody seems to treat it as sunk in Oudemansiella...Circéus (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, says both MycoBank and the Dictionary. Sasata (talk) 23:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

If so, we seem to not have the same 54 genera as the dict.: the list in Marasmiaceae had 54 members unless I was mistaken, but Connopus is new, while these two are not recognized. We are thus (ignoring that Calathella and Dactylosporina might turn out to belong elsewhere) missing two of the 2008 Ainsworth and Bisby genera... Circéus (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll dig around more fully later tonight, but it wouldn't be unheard of for them to make a mistake, I've found several during my research here. Back later. Sasata (talk) 23:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep me updated. I'll update Marasmiaceae in the meantime

• This is a relevant paper, I think I'll prepare a cladogram this weekend from it and drop it into the family article. One missing genus is Setulipes; since its publication in 1987, the type species has been shown to belong in Gymnopus, but Antonin has used the genus name in publications even more recently, so I guess it's still valid for now. Note that Palaeocephala is listed as being in either the Marasmiaceae or the Physalacriaceae (I had it in the Tricholomataceae until fixing it just now), so I don't know if it counts in the Dic's total. Sasata (talk) 02:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I guess Palaeocephala is not much more different from Dactylosporina, but until a definite placement is decided upon, maybe Agaricales incertae sedis would do? I'll add Setulipes with a note to its tentativeness when I come back to it. I've added all in could get off Internet (Google Book started coughing around the Ns), and won't be able to access a physical copy until Tuesday. Circéus (talk) 04:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The consensus seems clearly for putting Dactylosporina in Physalacriaceae, usually merged back into Xerula. Even Antonín has apparently given up on Setulipes (though some combinations in Gymnopus remains to be done). Palaeocephala seems not to have been much reevaluated recently, however, so I guess it's better to keep it there provisionally with a note. With that done, the bulk of what I can/intended to do is done, I guess. Circéus (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Too bad, I had hoped you intended to bring all the genus articles to GA and make it into a good topic ;-) Sasata (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I thought we intended to work on making the Tricholomataceae list for FL? XD I can probably fill in a couple ref in it too, and recently finished typing up alt texts. Circéus (talk) 20:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I will review the FLC criteria tonight and see what else has to be done. I've written an intro blurb around here somewhere... just need to find it. Sasata (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I actually managed to wrangle the bibliographic details for all the incomplete references out of the Internet. W00t! Circéus (talk) 01:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Nice! I've been doing some wrangling myself, and think I've found two missing Tricholomataceae and two Marasmiaceae genera—details after I put my kids to sleep and make a pot of coffee... Sasata (talk) 01:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• 1: Nothoclavulina. Sasata (talk) 02:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I thought we didn't make separate articles for anamorphs? Ucucha 03:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
    • We don't really have clear policy on this, which somewhat mirrors the real-life taxonomical situation... they're still debating how to handle anamorphic genera with known teleomorphs, and some mycologists still name anamorphs as new species even when they know what the teleomorphs are. This is one of the main reasons I haven't worked much on completing anamorph genera here on Wikipedia (well, that and the fact I find other fungi more interesting). Sasata (talk) 03:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
      • OK... I recall a few G/FAs of yours with known anamorphs that didn't link them, so I thought that was the default. Ucucha 04:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
        • I'm being consistently inconsistent, reflecting the source literature :) Sasata (talk) 04:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• 2: Ugola one source had me on a wild goose chase, claiming that this anamorphic genus was in the Tricholomataceae, but alas, it (and the teleomorph Asterophora) are in the Lyophyllaceae. Sasata (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• 3: Caripia Sasata (talk) 03:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • What is a "reduced form"? An anamorph? Ucucha 03:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I think it this case it means a simplified form. Circéus (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Yep; I'll add more descriptive details later, but see this in the meantime. Sasata (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Thanks... still sounds weird to me, but it agrees with the source. Ucucha 04:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• 4. not Lampteromyces - another goose-chase. The Dictionary lists this as a valid (monotypic) genus, but others lump it in with Omphalotus. The clincher is this molecular work which shows the type O. japonicus firmly nested within Omphalotus. Sasata (talk) 03:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• 5. Same deal with Sarcomyxa: valid according to the Dic, but it's actually just Panellus serotinus. I guess these account for the discrepancies in the number of genera between the Dic and our list. Sasata (talk) 04:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Re: Tricholomataceae genera; one of the criteria is minimal redlinks. I'll stub out the type species throughout the week. Sasata (talk) 08:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I'll keep an eye out for any useful contrib I can make. In the meantime, I made a selection of pics for the Marasmiaceae list. On a separate issue. I've been unclear as to the definition of "resupinate". Are Campanella and Caripia considered to be resupinate (actually... is their spore bearing surface pointing upward at all?), or is that term applied only to mold-like species like Peniophora? Circéus (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Resupinate = crust-like = Corticioid fungi. There's another word to describe fruit bodies like those produced by Campanella or Crepidotus, but I can't think of it right now. I don't think Caripia is either of those. Sasata (talk) 16:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

On 2 December 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Suillus pungens, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that when choosing Suillus pungens mushrooms for the table, one should pick young specimens to avoid "fat, agitated maggots"? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

		The 200 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
		Congratulations are in order! You have created or expanded more than 200 articles which appeared on the Main page in the "Did you know?" section. Your articles, primarily on fungus topics, have been a great benefit to the fund of human knowledge which is Wikipedia. Fantastic! Binksternet (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Sasata (talk) 23:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

WP thanks you! :D

Binksternet (talk) 23:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello again, Sasata! And congrats for your 200 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal! I am here again because I've developed many fungi articles of the Amanita genus, and still more, trying to expand them, add pictures and more references to them to make them more informative. Here are the articles I've worked on:

• Amanita crocea
• Amanita fulva
• Amanita jacksonii
• Amanita gemmata

Was my work on these satisfactory? These articles again need to be given their the importance and quality levels soon. I suggest there should be a wikiproject where these are given more importance. Thanks, --Sainsf<^> (talk) 05:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Nice work! This weekend, I will pick one article and copyedit/format it, explaining each change in my edit summary. That way you can see how I approach formatting of species articles—not that my way is necessarily the "right" way, but with the idea that you might learn some "tricks" that will make it easier to write future articles (lots of them, I hope) with a standardized format. Sound like a good plan? Sasata (talk) 05:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, please leave a talkback at my talk page. Your idea is nice, Sasata! Well, I'm interested in expanding and adding media to articles about these fungi. Let me know which article you're planning about to copyedit. I think I'll be available next Sunday. If you tell the name of the article, I can view its condition now and after you format it, notify me. I'll observe the change. Thanks, --Sainsf<^> (talk) 06:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll be working on Amanita gemmata throughout the day and this evening. Feel free to leave any questions about changes I've made here or at the article's talk page. Sasata (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, there's lots of literature I have to sort through. Will take a few days... but I'm in no rush :) Sasata (talk) 06:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your changes to this article, friend! You've also helped me a lot. Well, now I'm writing an article about Amanita amerimuscaria. But it isn't there in the list of amanita species. However, I'm trying my best to create this article and remove the redlinks in the list also. I'll try my best to contribute by removing these redlinks. Thanks,--Sainsf<^> (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

This one has a problem—it has not yet been validly published. Although the North American "Amanita muscaria" is now well-known to be different than the European version, amerimuscaria is still a provisional name, and we're waiting for Rod Tulloss to publish it. Because of this, writing a Wikipedia article about this species is premature. Sasata (talk) 04:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, hi friend. I didn't know you're online! Well, now I'm not creating articles on Amanita species but finding other species to work on. Currently I'm listing the species at the Psathyrellaceae article. --Sainsf<^> (talk) 04:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, at 746 species in the Psathyrellaceae, that one should keep you busy for a while :) Do you know about the site Mushroom Observer? I usually feel more motivated to write a species article if I know there's a good photo to go with it, and MO has a nice selection, mostly under Wikipedia-compatible licenses. Sasata (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know about the site. But also there are 2 more useful sites- MushroomExpert and one of R.E. Tulloss here. Well, today I've created more articles, and added many species. Do take a look-

• Stereum ostrea- As I am busy in some other work, please expand this article.
• List of Coprinopsis species

• Great! I've trimmed the article a bit, let me know if you're not clear about why I removed anything, I'd be happy to explain. Sasata (talk) 08:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Psathyrellaceae- Added species of the Coprinellus, Coprinopsis and Parasola genera.

You can reply to me now, as I'll go offline after my other works at Wikipedia will be over, Actually, I'll not be editing now, but as I've to collect some information from Wikipedia, I can know if you've replied. Thanks, --Sainsf<^> (talk) 07:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Just in case you didn't know, the Amanitaceae studies has been "made obsolete" by a completely new site. It's a massive improvement. Circéus (talk) 06:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I knew; I agree! Sasata (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks like you copy-paste a standard sentence to family/genus fungi articles, like in Hypocreaceae. "According to the Dictionary of the Fungi (8th edition, 2008), the family has x genera and x species." The text says 8th edition but the footnote says 10th edition, which is correct? Maybe someone can use a bot or something to fix it in all articles? 85.11.25.101 (talk) 12:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixed... tack så mycket! Sasata (talk) 14:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It would appear both Tulostomataceae and List of Agaricaceae genera are claiming Battarrea as a member... Circéus (talk) 00:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• I musta made that Tulostomataceae page before I got my Dictionary... it's been wrapped into the Agaricaceae. Now redirected. Sasata (talk) 01:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I have raised a question about the taxonomy of this species on the Paecilomyces lilacinus talk page. It is of interest to me as I copied the Taxobox for a new article I am writing on Paecilomyces fumosoroseus.

It would also be useful to have feedback on my new article Entomophthora muscae. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Did you know? SmartSE (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed! Cwmhiraeth, that's a great article! I tidied up the formatting a bit, and submitted an interesting Did You Know. More of the same, please :) Sasata (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey Sasata! So I saw that you are taking the “Behavior” section in our collaboration. That’s been divided up into several subgroups, one of which is “Predator avoidance”. I’d like to do “Predator avoidance”, unless you or Rlendog are already planning on taking that. Is that section still open? The Arbiter^★_★^★ 00:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter to me... figure out what you guys want to cover, and I'll take the scraps :) Sasata (talk) 00:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks! The Arbiter^★_★^★ 01:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

On 13 December 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hygrophorus bakerensis, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Mount Baker waxy cap was named after the volcano on which it was first collected? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 06:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, if you have any chemical models you want me to draw (for the fungi chemicals), you can tell me directly on my talk page. Oh, just bear in mind that my active periods on Wikipedia (at least for now) is about 2 a.m. to 10 a.m. GMT. I might still be on the other times, but I won't be so active. Bear in mind that I might not be able to respond to you so quickly, but I'll do it as fast as possible.

I've heard from Rifleman 82 that you also give some sources so I can draw the models according to it. What kind of "sources" are they? Are they already in diagram form?

I can't wait to start, so just notify me if you have something for me to do. I'm glad to help. ;) YOSF0113 (talk - contributions) 09:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer to help; I don't have any structures I need at this moment, but I'm writing new stuff all the time, so that's likely to change soon :) You'll be the first one I ask! (p.s. the sources Rifleman refers to are usually the structure already drawn in another publication) Sasata (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Apart from the structure drawing help which I/YOSF0113 are very glad to provide, would you like to be a part-time chemist? ;) It's really not that hard. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, how often do you need me to draw the models for you? Just to get an idea of when I'll need to check. YOSF0113 (talk - contributions) 02:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sasata, I know you asked to not be bothered with notices, and I doing just that lol, you haven't responded. Come back (said like Rose in the Titanic) :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 19:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 12:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

On 15 December 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Entomophthora muscae, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the fungus Entomophthora muscae makes flies climb upwards before killing them, so they are better able to release a shower of spores for the next cycle of infection? If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

All input here welcomed --> Wikipedia_talk:WikiCup/Scoring#Okay_-_bombs_away - open to all to comment anyway. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't know if you saw, but we got that picture in the end. J Milburn (talk) 12:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did ... nice picture too, not quite FPC material, but excellent EV nonetheless. Sasata (talk) 20:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

On 16 December 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mycena aurantiomarginata, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a novel pigment with antibiotic properties was discovered in fruit bodies of the golden-edge bonnet (pictured)? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

  Hello! Your submission of Hydnaceae at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Thelmadatter (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sasata! Thanks for all your ecology editorial notes. I have recently gone through your comments and will go back through to make some tough choices on trimming the article down into sub-pages. I imagine that a trimming on top of all the edits that you suggested and I could re-nominate for GA. I'll be working on this through the x-mas holidays.Thompsma (talk) 06:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Good to see you back, slugging away at this beast! I'll keep a lookout for the next GA; I may not necessarily review it this time, but will probably give it a copyedit to help it be as presentable as possible. It might also be a good idea to consider organizing the sources into list-defined references once you've got the content sorted out, it'll make it easier to standardize the source formatting and edit the text. I'd be happy to do that for you later if you want. Sasata (talk) 06:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

 

Hi Sasata,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Oil platform P-51 (Brazil).jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on December 19, 2010. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2010-12-19. howcheng {chat} 18:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on December 21, 2010. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 21, 2010. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbh®tch^{Talk ©} Happy Holidays 03:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

 

Hydnellum peckii is an inedible fungus, and a member of the genus Hydnellum of the Bankeraceae family. It is a hydnoid species, producing spores on the surface of vertical spines or tooth-like projections that hang from the undersurface of the fruit bodies. It is found in North America, Europe, and was recently discovered in Iran (2008) and Korea (2010). Hydnellum peckii is a mycorrhizal species, and forms mutually beneficial relationships with a variety of coniferous trees, growing on the ground singly, scattered, or in fused masses. The fruit bodies typically have a funnel-shaped cap with a white edge, although the shape can be highly variable. Young, moist fruit bodies can "bleed" a bright red juice that contains a pigment known to have anticoagulant properties similar to heparin. The unusual appearance of the young fruit bodies has earned the species several descriptive common names, including the bleeding tooth fungus and Devil's tooth. Although the fruit bodies are readily identifiable when young, they become brown and nondescript when they age. (more...)

Hi, thanks for catching the breakage in MPUploadBot. In the future, if something like this happens again (with any bot), could you please notify the operator? Many users, myself included, do not always read AN, so it's usually a good idea to post on the talk page. (and I could have fixed it before getting blocked.) (X! · talk)  · @718  ·  16:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought about it, but vaguely recalled you were the operator for the bot that tabulated the Wikicup scores, and were sometimes hard to get a hold of when that bot went down. I figured leaving a note on WP:AN would get the problem solved quickly. Sasata (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Not that I want to say anything bad about the Wikicup, but MPUploadBot is more important, and if it has major breakage like that (it's never happened like that before, IIRC), I will try to fix it ASAP. But no matter. A message to both would be a good compromise. Thanks for the catch! :) (X! · talk)  · @750  ·  16:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

On 18 December 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hydnaceae, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... the Hydnaceae family contains mushrooms with "teeth"? If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I mused on buffing this (and Paxillus involutus later) up for FAC as two long term articles I'd like to take to completion as it were. Funny how nothing much turns up on Web of Science (am I searching it wrong?) - doing the scouring of sources before rejigging it for FAC. Also, my access to the journal Applied Organometallic Chemistry only goes 1996 and later - I saw you'd used this article in Sarcosphaera - I added it anyway but seeing the fulltext'd be good.. :)

PS: I bought some imported Hydnum repandum to cook up and munch on at the markets yesterday...Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Oooh, another mushroom FAC... give me a day or three and I'll whip it into shape ;-) Web of Science doesn't turn up a lot for me either (11 hits), but JSTOR has a few more. I'm sure I can find some good stuff in my stack o' books. H. repandum is fairly common in the woods I frequent, but I've never actually eaten it myself. Sasata (talk) 01:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Just had a lunch of fried wood hedgehog and nameko in butter, onion and desiree potato. Rather nice if I may say so myself....Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Haven't lost interest in this mushroom, but Strobilomyces expanded Collybia yesterday, and now I want to do a quad DYK with genus + the three species before it goes stale (I get easily distracted here)... Sasata (talk) 08:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. I know the time-pressure on DYKs...Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

... for your elaborate responses on this FAC. I greatly value your judgement given your enormous featured content experience, and I have made sure to address all your points. At the same time I have not expanded the number of sources, because the sources currently in place cover the vast majority of the points you made (e.g. the features on neurological examination, the risks of potassium oversupplementation). I hope you will still agree to support. JFW | T@lk 12:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I saw that you left a comment, then reverted yourself. I am keen to hear about any outstanding issues with the article. JFW | T@lk 17:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll revisit tonight. Sasata (talk) 17:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I presume from your response on 23 December that you will still oppose currently? JFW | T@lk 23:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I really have no choice based on the FAC criteria (1(b) comprehensiveness and 1(c) a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature). We seem to have a difference of opinion on the interpretation of WP:MEDRS. I've carefully read the guidelines (again), and can't find the policy that supports your position that a publication consisting of a case study bundled with a literature review renders it ineligible as a review article (even though Pubmed explicitly lists it as a review). If you can point me specifically to the guideline text I've missed, or have other Med-editors confirm that your interpretation of the policy is correct, I'll recalibrate my thinking and reconsider my opposition. Sasata (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Once the authors identify a paper as a review, PubMed will categorise it so - this is a well-known issue. I have given other reasons why I found the "review" you linked to of particular poor quality. This has a bit to do with editorial judgement as well as the "spirit" of MEDRS.

I have invited a number of experienced WP:MED editors (GrahamColm, Casliber and Colin) to comment on the FAC, because the response has been limited. In the meantime, I invite you to propose any other important points that I have missed. Again, I am grateful for the omissions you pointed out earlier, and I still hope to persuade you that the article is comprehensive in its current state. JFW | T@lk 09:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sasata,

I've no idea why Kfrick3 deleted the biological weapons section in this edit, but had you realised your rollback reverted a bunch of apparently constructive earlier edits by the same contributor? See the page history. I haven't had a close look (little time right now), just thought I'd bring it to your attention.

Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I was too hasty with the rollback there, have undone my edit. Sasata (talk) 15:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey mate! As you may already know, Wiki(m/p)edia is doing an outreach program in which students at universities are working on articles about public policy (though the scope of the topics may expand, if I'm not mistaken). To help the students get their sh!t together, Wiki(m/p)edia has gathered together a team of fine editors (herein referred to as ambassadors) to act as mentors and content reviewers. Next semester's program is going to have a lot more students doing a lot more stuff, so we need a lot more ambassadors to help them not fail. If this sounds tasty and you're getting bored of writing every single fungus article on Wikipedia, check out Wikipedia:Online Ambassadors. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I just might sign myself up for this worthy initiative. (p.s. I still have Tigran Petrosian on the back of my mind, will resume working on the article sometime when the urge strikes ...) Sasata (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

A +1 to what Cryptic said. I think you'd make a great ambassador.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sasata...I finished all your suggested edits (plus more!) and have renominated ecology for GA review. Thought I should let you know and thank you for all your suggestions. I've trimmed and slimmed the article down significantly by breaking text into sub-articles. I think it is looking pretty good at this point and hope it passes the GA review quickly now that all the work has been completed.Thompsma (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm just trying to give this article a push to GA, but information is a little weak on the ground. Do you have access articles from SYDOWIA? I get the impression this article-

• Peintner, U; Horak, E (2002). "Inocybe (Basidiomycota, Agaricales) from Kamchatka (Siberia, Russia): taxonomy and ecology". SYDOWIA 54 (2): 198-241.

May have something of use in it, but I can only get an abstract... J Milburn (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• No, unfortunately I don't have any access to that journal. I'll have a look through my library tonight and see if there's anything I can add. Good luck with the article; at about 500 species in the genus, I think we'll get done good topics on Mycena and Inocybe at about the same time :) BTW, there's some photos of both I. rimosa and I. mixtilis at MO you could use to add in the Similar species section (and start new articles with ...) Sasata (talk) 23:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, you might consider contacting Malcolm Storey to see if he'd be willing to release [1] for use; judging from his conditions of use page, it sounds like he'd be amenable to the idea (several of his images are being used at the Encyclopedia of Life page. He also has a number of microscopy images as well. Sasata (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, I'll have a look into the image issue. I'm still getting to grips with what I can access through Athens, so I imagine there's some more stuff out there that I'm yet to find- I'll have another trawl through tomorrow. J Milburn (talk) 01:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I flipped through my stack of books, but found very little to add, just a minor tidbit from Arora. Sasata (talk) 08:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it's appreciated. I did another few searches, and found nothing. I gave it some last little tweaks, and I've gone ahead and nominated it. Hardly my best, but I think it's got everything it needs to have. J Milburn (talk) 12:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Agaricales says Panaeolus and Panaeolina are incertae sedis, but the pages, as well as the family, says they are in Bolbitiaceae, as do various external sources, but I haven't been able to trace that to a "hard" journal source. What do you think? Circéus (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Dictionary says both genera belong to "either the Inocybaceae or the Psathyrellaceae". Phylogenetic limbo. There's been a quite a bit of work done on Inocybaceae phylogeny in the last year or so (see the Matheny lab publications page), there might be info in there somewhere to include/exclude it from that family if you wish to dig. Sasata (talk) 01:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

On 23 December 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Collybia, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the three species of the fungal genus Collybia—C. cookei (pictured), C. cirrhata, and C. tuberosa—all grow on the decomposing remains of other mushrooms? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

On 23 December 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Collybia cookei, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the three species of the fungal genus Collybia—C. cookei (pictured), C. cirrhata, and C. tuberosa—all grow on the decomposing remains of other mushrooms? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

On 23 December 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Collybia cirrhata, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the three species of the fungal genus Collybia—C. cookei (pictured), C. cirrhata, and C. tuberosa—all grow on the decomposing remains of other mushrooms? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

On 23 December 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Collybia tuberosa, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the three species of the fungal genus Collybia—C. cookei (pictured), C. cirrhata, and C. tuberosa—all grow on the decomposing remains of other mushrooms? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

There's potential for a nice four article good topic there- the genus and the three species. Easier than Mycena, anyways! J Milburn (talk) 12:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea... I will try. Sasata (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll remain "uninvolved", so that I can offer GAC reviews if necessary. Good luck! J Milburn (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your review of Worlebury Camp. It has definitely improved the article.— Rod ^talk 17:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sasata - Would you have a few minutes to help out on my latest pre-FAC run? The Equine Wikiproject is working on Appaloosa, which is a bit more complex (both genetically and historically) than many breeds, and I'm hoping that you can do a quick search and see if we've missed anything in the scientific literature. If you look at the article, you'll see that we already have a fairly good cross section of information and studies on the genetics of their color patterning and blindness issues. What we are looking for is any studies on their genetics as a whole (relations to other breeds, etc., not just stuff on their color) and any studies/literature on their history. Plus anything that you think we've really missed on the blindness/color side, although we've already had a couple of geneticists go over that stuff, so it should be fairly good.

I hope you and your family had a wonderful Christmas and are enjoying the rest of the holiday break. I know this is a rather busy time of year for many, and so if you don't have time than it will be quite understood. It will probably be at least mid-January before this goes to FAC, so we're not in a huge hurry. Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 21:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I can do a lit search for you tomorrow. Sasata (talk) 00:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

  Done

Awesome, thanks! I've replied to your comments on the peer review page, and would love copies of the two naming articles from JSTOR if they're available to you. Thanks again, Dana boomer (talk) 14:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Does this imply that I have done some something bad? JFW | T@lk 20:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

groan - I think the thing is to be absolutely as scrupulous and give anything that can possibly interpreted as any form of canvassing as wide a berth as possible. Hence I would have worded it as, " Would you mind offering your opinion on the FAC page?" sorry, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Well, I thought it was irregular to explicitly elicit support for an ongoing FAC (see WP:CANVASS), but it's not up to me to decide whether it's "bad", I just wanted to make sure the FAC delegates have full disclosure. Sasata (talk) 20:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I would have made this request (and in this format) if Wouterstomp had not already stated that he was happy with the state of the article. JFW | T@lk 21:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Look, I can see why/how you asked, it's just that it doesn't take much in this place (i.e. wikipedia) for folks to start arguing and throwing around accusations about processes such as FAC, DYK etc.- have a look at the latest discussion at schizophrenia....Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. For the record, I'm not trying to sink the FAC or anything, but I know from experience that Sandy et al. like to be fully informed about things like this. And I promise to revisit my oppose (and maybe even support) if you can convincingly prove to me that combination case studies/literature reviews do not count as WP:MEDRS. Sasata (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC) (p.s. "convincingly prove" in this case means a sufficient number of editors agree, and the WP:MEDRS guidelines are changed to mention this; this isn't just pedantry on my part, if this is really the consensus I'd like to know, as I plan to work on some med-related articles in the future.) Sasata (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed you just rated this. What do you think about a GAC with only a single source? I was considering giving some last final touches to it and nominating it at GAC, but the article I cite is literally the only article of any worth I can find about the species. J Milburn (talk) 18:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Mycena clariviolacea, Mycena fonticola, Mycena fuscoaurantiaca, Mycena intersecta, Mycena lanuginosa, Mycena multiplicata, Mycena mustea, Mycena nidificata (and others) should give an indication about my feelings about (essentially) single-source GAs :) Also, you can cite MycoBank and/or Index Fungorum as another source to corroborate its existence, or for classification. You could also expand the similar species section with more details from other sources. Consider putting a pic of Juncus maritimus in the habitat section. Maybe a range map in the infobox? Firing off an email to Guzman-Davalos for a possible pic might be worthwhile as well. Sasata (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Great thoughts. I will look into all of them. Thanks. J Milburn (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• I've done what I can to prettify and expand the article, and gone ahead and nominated it for good article status. Weirdly, it's turned out pleasantly long. I'm thinking that the article includes everything it needs to (and it certainly references all relevant literature- all one piece of literature) and, considering what was discussed recently about short FAs, I'm actually thinking I may consider FAC, depending on how GAC goes. It feels like I've cheated a little, but I'm certainly proud of the result. I'm gonna email Laura Guzmán-Dávalos about a picture now. J Milburn (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• FAC: Ballsy! I will certainly watch with interest ;-) Sasata (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and nominated it- Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gymnopilus maritimus/archive1. It'll be interesting to see how this goes. J Milburn (talk) 14:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

JM, check out this (you'll have to put it through a translator, but even then it's somewhat incomprehensible), it appears to be another publication that discusses the mushroom. I think it would be a good idea to email these guys (Contu and Vizzini) as well for a pic, and perhaps a PDF of this pub ... and hope that one of them speaks English well enough to reply :) Sasata (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the link's not working for me. Could you link to a page containing a link to the PDF? J Milburn (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Not working for me either; it appears the page has died. I can generally understand enough Italian to know what they are talking about, though I'll probably fail on Italian mycologese. Ucucha 22:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah sorry, I had the link wrong, try this. Sasata (talk) 03:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a great find, well done. How you found that is beyond me! I've fired off an email (in my best British "they'll understand, everyone speaks English") asking about a copy of the article (which, though it explicitly just repeats technical details, does have "some notes and observations" which may be useful) and pictures. Laura Guzmán-Dávalos is yet to get back to me; it is the holiday season, University faculty especially may not be checking their email. J Milburn (talk) 06:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

My secret: I entered "Gymnopilus maritimus" (in quotes) into Google, and there it was on page two ;-) Sasata (talk) 06:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Alfredo Vizzini got back to me- he said he'd send the paper next week some time. J Milburn (talk) 14:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Molto buona! Sasata (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It started out as a one-line stub, then I got carried away :) It's the same journal and authors as the article I cited, but a different title, strangely. I don't seem to be able to access PubMed, so yeah, I'd appreciate the article- it's something I'd like to look into in the future. I notice you've just nominated another Suillus at FAC too; dropping by to give that a review is certainly going on my todo list... J Milburn (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Send me your email and it'll be with you shortly (same authors but different journal: Progress vs. Research). Sasata (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess my opinion on this particular point has changed, probably due to my use of a ICZN-like format over at Wikispecies... As the wise man said: only fools never change their mind. I (obviously) agree that chronological order is best, but I must say I don't remember what format was used in the taxoboxes I protested back then. I'm still not entirely sure that years should be in the taxobox (there's only room for so much info on any given name!). If they must be, then I figure they are not so crucial as to be given such prominence: after all, we are listing synonyms first and foremost; their being in chronological order is secondary to that. With that taken into account, the only "official" formal for including date is the one in ICBN (The one used by some journal has to do with work citation, not author citation per se.). Ideally, though, I'd still leave no date in the taxobox and let the Taxonomy section do the job of giving the dates, with the implied understanding that taxobox synonyms are in chronological order. Does that reasoning makes sense? Circéus (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Ideally, all fungus articles will have a developed taxonomy section, but until then I'll put the year in parentheses according to ICBN format. However, I've gotten used to including this information, and I can't bring myself to remove the info from taxoboxes in articles even if they do have developed taxonomy sections. For over a year now I've been thinking about working on a fungal:MoS for taxon articles. I've also been thinking it would be a good idea to go through all the FAs and GAs I worked on and bring them up to a consistent standard with respect to reference and formatting; it would make sense to do the former (develop a FungiProject Mos) before the latter so we could have Project consensus on what we want our featured/good content to look like. I'll think about this some more and start a subpage at the project page soonish. Sasata (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I've dealt with everything you raised, and more. Thanks for giving such a thorough review, I appreciate the article now looks like it was a little underprepared. J Milburn (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I appreciate the thorough review, and I appreciate you going that extra mile at the end. It's turned out looking great. J Milburn (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

You're quite welcome; keep 'em coming! Sasata (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello. You are being contacted because you have previously shown interest in the WikiCup but have not yet signed up for the 2011 WikiCup, which starts at midnight. It is not too late to sign up! The competition will remain open until at least January 31, and so it is not too late to enter. If you are interested, simply follow the instructions to add your username to the signup page, and a judge will contact you as soon as possible with an explanation of how to participate. The WikiCup is a friendly competition open to all Wikipedians, old and new, experienced and inexperienced, providing a fun and rewarding way to contribute quality content to Wikipedia. If you do not want to receive any further messages about the WikiCup, or you want to start receiving messages about the WikiCup, you may add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the WikiCup talk page or contact the judges directly. J Milburn and The ed17 06:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I've offered a review and placed it on hold. It caught my eye on T:TDYK; that's why I was so quick :) J Milburn (talk) 20:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sasata, hope you had a good holiday, just got a couple of questions for you... I'm thinking about nominating mephedrone at FAC but was wondering if you could take another look and let me know what definitely needs working on prior to doing so? I think the references need working on (which reminds me of this new gadget you might find useful) and I can foresee problems with the sourcing of the side effects section (I've asked for some better sources here but haven't had much luck yet). I noticed the photo you added to my fungivory draft but then noticed that it looks very different to other shots of the same species over at commons, do you know what species it actually is? I'm going to try to find more time to get back to the draft soon, just been a little distracted lately. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I've added it to my to-do list and will give it a pre-FAC check in the next few days. Funny you should mention GT; I wasted many hours playing GT1 and 2 back in the day... more recently, my parents bought their grandkids a Wii so it's been pretty much non-stop Mario here in the past few days. I can still beat my 6-year old son, but not for long. Now I have to go figure out the difference between pods and pseudopods :-P (p.s. about the mushroom, amerimuscaria has variable cap coloring so can be anywhere from yellow to orange to red. A look at the 20 pages of photos at Mushroom Observer should convince you of the range of color variations). Sasata (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! Funny that they bought Mario, they must know about your interest in mushrooms. I'm a long way off suffering the indignity of being beaten by my offspring on consoles, I think when that day comes it will be the day to hang up the controller. I see what you mean about the shroom, I'll patiently await the blue link to find out how it differs from the fly agaric which it looks very similar to. I see you had luck with the pseduopod. SmartSE (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. That one you could hit with {{PUI}}, listing it at possibly unfree images or, in blatant cases, {{db-copyvio}}, which puts it up for speedy deletion. If you use Twinkle, it'll help you do all that stuff; I couldn't live without it :) J Milburn (talk) 12:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I know you wrote a lot of Mycena articles last year- have you come across one with a distinctively white cap and black stem? I photographed these a while ago, and I keep trying to reidentify, but it really interests me as it seems there is simply nothing in any of my books they could be. I came across thos online which seems to be pretty close, but, annoyingly, the site doesn't actually identify it to species level- just agrees with me that it's a Mycena. J Milburn (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Nope, no idea. Is that wood it's growing on? Next time, pluck one and take a picture of its gills, and the lower part of its stem (to check for hairs or mycelium at the base). Sniff it too, some species smell like bleach. Hopefully you'll see it again this year. Sasata (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You could also try posting in the mushroom forum here [2]; it's UK-specific, and they have some pretty knowledgeable members who may have run across it before. Sasata (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't bother taking pictures of the gills and such, partly because I didn't want to disturb them (I thought they were very pretty) and partly because I thought it would be easy to identify! I'll post them on the forum and see if anyone can help out. J Milburn (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Offered a review, this is a particularly nice one! By the way, I'm now pretty sure about that Mycena; it's Mycena arcangeliana (hands off, I saw it first!), so I'm gonna write an article in the coming days and submit it as my 50th DYK- it'd be nice to have a milestone illustrated with one of my own pictures :) J Milburn (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again! I respond tonight. I'll keep my hands off the Mycena ... for a while ... Sasata (talk) 02:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Sasata, thanks for all of your in-depth review and commentary on this FAC. In the medical realm, we frequently battle not only misuse of primary sources, but also editors cherrypicking old case reports disguised as reviews, to further pet theories or theories that don't enjoy broad medical consensus. We have to encourage editors to use consensus and editorial judgment to use only the highest quality reviews; I just wanted you to know why I promoted anyway, as I don't want to further the trend in the wrong direction. You did a ton of work there, and it's most appreciated! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Sandy; I have no problems with the article being promoted, the consensus was pretty clear among experienced med-editors. I haven't reviewed many "pure" med articles at FAC, so this was a good practice run to calibrate my thinking about WP:MEDRS for future reviews. Sasata (talk) 03:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It's funny working between the two paradigms - in general, medical articles have had alot of material published, enough so that even restricting them to secondary sources still has the potential to yield huge articles (e.g. schizophrenia etc.). Thus it almost goes without saying that any halfway decent primary source should have been incorporated into or discussed in some form of secondary source somewhere to be considered part of the core encylopedic material. I guess also as there is alot of marginal, dubious or questionable information out there about a host of medical conditions, and concern by editors that folks will use wikipedia as a reference for information on conditions. Hence it is more controversial than many bio articles. This medical article is a little different in that it is much smaller than the average subject, and did give me some pause that maybe we should be embellishing a little more. However I too have been criticised about being too lenient with primary sources in med articles, so was content to let slide to consensus medical opinion...and medical articles can be gamed very easily by misuse of primary sources. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

PS: Thus in essence, while I'd like to see articles fuller, the consensus approach with medical articles adhering more closely to seconday sources is a prudent course. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Poor Cas ... I don't know how you hung in there for so many years on Schizophrenia, battling every pet theory, but I try to follow the model that Eubulides set at Autism and Asperger syndrome-- chop, chop, chop and restrict the article to an overview of the highest quality sources, lest the fringe floodgates open! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I've seen the brouhaha at Schizophrenia... makes me glad I work with the uncontroversial fungi! It's one of my goals this year to bring a med article to FAC (fungi-related of course, probably ringworm or one of the related Dermatophytosis diseases), so this last review has been educational. Sasata (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I imagine there'll be a mountain of material for ringworm...so that might end up a pretty hefty article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

(←) Sasata, I do owe you a debt of gratitude for prompting the expansion of the article during the FAC, particularly in the "signs and symptoms" section, which was deficient, and the "history" section, for which further research unearthed some very useful content. You took an enormous amount of time to review sources (including UpToDate), and I hope to follow your example when reviewing candidates for featured content. Please accept my apologies if my responses have at any point come across as terse or offhand. Kind regards, JFW | T@lk 14:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

No need for apologies, I think we both did our "job" in ensuring a high-quality article was promoted to FA. Looking forward to seeing more submissions from you! Sasata (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the fair and competent GA review. I'll get to those outstanding points eventually. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You're quite welcome, I'm glad to see biochemistry articles being improved to high standards. Sasata (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

On 5 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pilophorus acicularis, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the devil's matchstick (pictured) supplies fixed nitrogen to the environment? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your contribution Victuallers (talk) 03:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Sasata. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.