User talk:Sasata/Archive 17

DYK for Gyroporus cyanescens
Yngvadottir (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

WP Fungi in the Signpost
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Fungi for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 00:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Puccinia mariae-wilsoniae
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Sasata, thank you for promoting Giant eland to GA. Well, currently I am working on Dromedary, may be posting it soon for GAN. If you like you may help me with any literature you have. It is already becoming an informative article!-- Sainsf &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 05:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * A Web of Knowledge search for Camelus dromedarius pulls up over 8000 sources; most of it is technical stuff that's not really appropriate for a Wikipedia article. Any way you could narrow the search to something you're specifically looking for? Sasata (talk) 05:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thurovia
Hi Sasata, I noticed you created the article Thurovia, which is tagged for merging with Thurovia triflora. They do appear to be duplicates, but they seem to make conflicting claims about what the genus name is. I'm happy to carry out this merge myself once the matter is cleared up. Feel free to reply to me here or to my request for help at WikiProject Plants. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like the merge was appropriate. I added a source that confirms synonymy with Gutierrezia triflora. Sasata (talk) 05:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks Mark! I left some thoughts about further things to mull over before FAC on the talk page. Sasata (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Article request
Hi Sasata! I was wondering if you would be able to send me the chapter on cabbage from Transgenic Crops, Biotechnology in Agriculture and Forestry, as you did with lettuce? Cabbage is my new project, after the success of taking lettuce to FA! It's still in sandbox form at the moment, but I'm hoping to get it moved to the mainspace within the next week or so, hopefully in better shape (i.e., more complete) than the lettuce one was when I moved it! Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 23:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Received your e-mail - thank you very much! Dana boomer (talk) 10:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Zeus (fungus)
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The last fungus
Hello,

thanks for your work on Barbeyella minutissima!. I will begin to work on the probably last fungus translated from a German featured version, but I am not sure what is the best time to do that in regard to WikiCup. Do you want me to translate it during the last round or the current? Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 19:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Anytime that works for you is ok with me; I'm more or less done my vacation and back on a regular editing schedule. When you go live with the last article I can copyedit/expand it within a day or two. Sasata (talk) 19:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I see a quirky hook for Tricholoma vaccinum
Were you going to nom him already?  Rcej (Robert) –  talk  07:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing special suggested itself to me ... whaddya have in mind? Sasata (talk) 07:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait and see ;) Its not gonna be the hook Taj Mahal, though. lol  Rcej (Robert) –  talk  07:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Boletus curtisii
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Re:Image query
That's really quite regrettable; we can get around potential problems like this with, but I'm not sure that there's much that can be done here. Of course, I have no doubt that they were released, but there's potentially a dangerous precedent to be set. With the featured picture, it seems like a fair guess that people checked the licensing, and the fact JJ uploaded his own version shows that he will have checked... But the other one is definitely problematic. I note Rcej didn't even make a generic "licenses check out" comment in his GA review. Also, I've checked the Internet archive, and there's nothing there. I think contacting the authors may be the best option- see if they are willing to "release" the images, or at least confirm that they did once release them. Without that, I'm not sure that this would get through FAC, as, otherwise, all we have are vague assurances that it was probably checked. Sorry I don't have some magic way around this! J Milburn (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think, if email is not an option, the best way would be to have some kind of centralised discussion somewhere (perhaps on Commons) where you may be able to get some kind of consensus that the images are OK- a common sense versus procedure-type situation. One possible venue could even be at FPC. J Milburn (talk) 21:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Your requests
Looks like that issue of the Naturaliste is available at the botanical garden (which is more practical for me than the university library, as I can edit at the former, but not the latter). I'll try to drop there this week (also I'll give Phallus indusiatus a look asap). Circéus (talk) 04:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As a side note, for quebec distribution you can probably rely on Mycoquebec.org (though it's in French). It's got input behind the scenes by professional/published mycologists, and even offline discussion with experts outside Quebec, so i consider easily as, if not more reliable than MushroomObserver.com Circéus (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've let JMilburn know about your opinion, and will see what he thinks. Sasata (talk) 19:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

So I've started with a pass at the references, and I'd like to know which style should I standardize the short refs to? "Doe (year), page" or "Doe year, page"? Circéus (talk) 04:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The former is what I've done with previous FA's ... thanks! Sasata (talk) 06:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Tricholoma vaccinum
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Ding
I've emailed you. Thanks, J Milburn (talk) 19:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Boletellus russellii
Hello! Your submission of Boletellus russellii 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 One ping only 09:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't believe it's not butter!
If you'll 5x Boletus regius, we have double DYK: " ...that the butter-foot bolete (pictured) and red-capped butter bolete are in the same section?" Its more work for you...cool! ;)  Rcej (Robert) –  talk  04:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No jokes about butter, it might spread. Gimme a coupla days, will see what I can find out about B. regius. Sasata (talk) 04:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL...boo!!  Rcej (Robert) –  talk  10:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ – note I changed the common name of B. regius in the hook. Not the most earth-shattering of hooks, but it's better than anything I could come up with! Sasata (talk) 06:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Podoserpula
Hello! Your submission of Podoserpula 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! Chris857 (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Pluteus nevadensis
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Mycena atkinsoniana
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Engleromyces sinensis
Orlady (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Cortinarius camphoratus
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Barbeyella minutissima
When I took on the review of Barbeyella minutissima, I expected that the person who responded would be Kürbis who nominated the article for GA. I am well aware that you know a great deal more about slime moulds than me and are much more experienced in writing GA and FA articles, so that making suggestions for improvement is rather like a penguin providing lessons on flight to a seagull! So, if you disagree with things I suggest, you had better take no notice of what I say. Although I have not yet considered the other GA criteria, I am not expecting to find much amiss with the article.

Would you consider taking on the GA review of Amphibian? I am keen to get this started because I have further plans for the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, Kürbis kindly agreed to let me tag on to his GAN after I found some additional sources and expanded the article. I don't really know a lot about slime moulds, but at any rate, all of your suggestions for prose improvements have been helpful. I will consider taking on the amphibian GAN, but should really finish off another one I've started first, and I should also really complete my GAN of malaria, before I exhaust the kind reviewer's patience :) I am a fan of amphibians (worked a bit on Mark's Thompson's article Long-toed salamander to help bring it to GA), and will take the review in a week or so if no-one else gets there first. Sasata (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that would be helpful. I'll carry on with this slime mould review when you have decided whether to add some background information. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

bioluminescent fungi
I'll be happy to have a look through it. Probably not before tomorrow or Wednesday though. I'm slightly more busy than usual this week. Circéus (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Having pored over it a little (focusing mostly on the prose part): intro needs a complete rewrite and split for a "bioluminescence in fungi" intro section. An exemple of a serious problem: it contradict itself right off by saying that biolum provides antioxidant protection and then stating that "the function of fungal bioluminescence has not been established" (this being because there's a failure to distinguish the biolum phenomenon and the biochemical process that causes it). I'll do a rewrite myself. In the meantime, I strongly suspect that the ref for the Lucentipes lineage comment is second hand (Oliviera & al. doesn't seem to include much phylogenetic info but I can't see more than a few graphs and the abstract), so can you try and dig up the ref, assuming it's not to something in press? Circéus (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, they source this statement to Matheny et al. (2006). Let me know if you'd like any of the refs emailed to you. Sasata (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually I'd like to see Oliviera & al., 'cause Matheny has nothing to do with either taxa. I'm going to assume it's cited to indicate the clade is not named, not to any paper that established it since Desjardins & al. (2010) has this in the intro (emphasis mine, author citations removed for legibility): "and an unnamed lineage (including Gerronema viridilucens and Mycena lucentipes; Perry and Desjardin unpubl )." Circéus (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with your assessment. Paper sent. Sasata (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I've chosen to work on it in my sandbox to avoid disrupting the article. As to Bisporella citrina, the writing could be improved a little, but is basically accurate. Circéus (talk) 03:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for checking the disco. Sasata (talk) 04:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * On deeper looking, we have some serious taxonomic problems. We cannot seriously list species in genera (Dictyopanus) that the encyclopedia does not recognize and that may not be considered good taxa. I have hardly found anything about those two taxon for the last 40 years! Burdsall & Miller (Mycotaxon 7(3):511-514. 1978.) notes that the type of D. foliicolus seems lost. And the name was never transferred (as far as I can tell) to Panellus. Similarly we mention Prunulus, but don't list any species from that genera, while a bunch of other genera (Dictyopanus, Filoboletus, lampteromyces, Nothopanus, Pleurotus and Poromycena) are in the list, but not assigned to any lineage. That looks pretty sloppy for an article aimed at Featured status. Circéus (talk) 04:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Given the taxonomic second thoughts mentioned, I'm putting the finer points of revision (i.e. the references: I've done most of the prose rewriting I wanted to) on the backburner until some/most has been sorted through. Circéus (talk) 13:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I knew there was going to be some problems with the taxon names. I'll work on these as much as I can, but probably won't be able to put serious time into it until November. Sasata (talk) 17:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Boletellus russellii
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost/2012-09-10/WikiProject report
Hey, have you seen this? Seems a shame not to have you chipping in when you're the most prolific editor in the project! J Milburn (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I did, but I prefer to keep a low profile. Sasata (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Endogone
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Boletus auripes
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Boletus regius
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Giant eland
Hi, Sasata. This is about the article Giant eland, which you promoted as GA. Now I have time, and can start work on it to make it an FA. I would be glad to have your help, as this shall be my first FAC attempt. If you have time (I see you are busy the whole year with the WikiCup championship!) then you can guide me with this. -- Sainsf &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 13:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to help you out. I recommend submitting the article to peer review, to get more eyes on the prose. I'll do another lit search search soon to ensure there's nothing important that's been missed. Sasata (talk) 17:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Albaflavenone


Hi, here it is: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Albaflavenone.png

Please tell me if there is an error with it, I will change it :) -- YOSF0113 (talk - contributions) 15:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Holy cow that was fast! Thanks very much, it will go in the article Phallus indusiatus that I hope to submit to FAC soon. Sasata (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Podoserpula
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Parasola auricoma
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for List of bioluminescent fungi
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Mycena chlorophos
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Agaricus bernardii
The DYK project (nominate) 16:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Ibogaine
Could you respond on the GA nomination? Ebe 123  → report 19:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

re GAN Podoserpula
Hi,

I've reviewed your nomination and made a few comments at Talk:Podoserpula/GA1.

Temporarily on hold. Wonderful fungi!

Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 16:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Colus hirudinosus
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again
Thank you for your long-term committment to the good article nomination of malaria. I really think we're making great progress on improving the quality of this important article. Let me know if you think I'm being overly nit-picky. I guess it's entirely possible I'm bringing up things that aren't typically dealt with in a GA review, but I figure we've got a good thing going. Let me know if it could be improved. And still, I don't mind the slow going, but I can accelerate things if you'd like. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not sure if I could have gotten a better reviewer :) It's an important article, and I don't mind taking the time to get it right. My wife (a senior resident) has lined up a couple of subject-matter experts who've graciously offered to review it when it's ready (probably after peer review, but before FAC), so I'd like it to be in the best shape possible before then. And thank-you for putting up with my slow responses; I try to juggle a lot here on the 'pedia (including my time-consuming guilty pleasure), and I sometimes have to do quite a bit of background reading before I feel confident enough to make a change in the malaria article (I don't really have any particular expertise in the subject, just a science background). Sasata (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Perfect, and thanks. And I was going to offer to try and line up a subject matter expert for you too... But the offer stands. =) Once we get to that point, I'd actually like to try for you, because it could establish some new contact avenues for me or help start a useful avenue for high-quality medical articles to receive feedback on Wikipedia in general. Biosthmors (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me, the more eyes, the better! Sasata (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK review concerns
Hi Sasata, Ive tried to address the concerns you raised on my nomination here: Template:Did you know nominations/Eucommia jeffersonensis, Eucommia rolandii When you get a chance would you be willing to recheck the articles and nomination? Thanks!-- Kev min  § 20:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK criteria
I was thinking about DYK because I just found Medicines for Malaria Venture, which is unsourced. Now if someone completely rewrites the article, and sources it well with one edit then they don't meet the eligibility criteria. But could that same content qualify under 1. (d? I guess it would have to be done in user space, and then one would have to find an administrator to speedy delete before a move. And the admin would have to see that it obviously improves the article. Or, can someone make an edit to "chop it", for a minute, to remove everything but a sentence that demonstrates notability (because the content is problematic and unsourced WP:V) and then post the rewritten version? Then can they get an expansion. There's gotta be a way to reward people for completely rewriting and sourcing articles that clean up. Maybe at Dyk under New there could be a sentence like, "Completely rewriting an article that previously met the criteria for a good article quickfail are also considered 'new'." Just wondering about this. I'm sure some aspects of what I'm saying have been discussed before, but I'd rather ask you than dig for a long time, if you don't mind. Biosthmors (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've seen a few cases like this discussed at DYK over the years. Expanding and resourcing existing poorly-sourced (or completely non-sourced, in this case) content, unfortunately, doesn't qualify for any exemptions. I see you've placed a verification tag on the article. If no-one responds in about a week, our policies allow you rip out the unsourced text, and then you can plop in your userspace draft (as you proposed; I've seen this suggestion given by DYK regulars when posed a similar question on the talk page). Or, if your draft ends up being over 13095 characters (or thereabouts) it would qualify anyway. You could suggest amending the eligibility criteria on the talk page, but I've seen similar suggestions shot down in the past (for better or worse, the emphasis is on new content). Sasata (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Well then maybe I don't want to change any eligibility criteria. Maybe what would be best is just adding some prose and clarifing the meaning (even if most of the text is in a note at the bottom of the page). I want others to know there is an avenue to get a DYK for articles like this, because it wasn't clear to me. And FYI I don't think I'll end up rewriting this article, but knowing I could get a DYK for doing so makes it more likely. Am I understanding you right, and does the approach I describe sound reasonable (in that you may support something like this or you think others would)? Biosthmors (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think your approach is reasonable, and would be supported by (at least some) DYK regulars. Here's a couple of links to somewhat related discussions from the past year: 1, 2 (you could probably find more by searching the archives). Sasata (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Sasata,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Cortinarius vanduzerensis 134617.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on September 21, 2012. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2012-09-21. — howcheng  {chat} 17:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * My pleasure! Sasata (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

TFA considered
I suggested Armillaria luteobubalina to be considered for TFA, please feel free to join the discussion, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Next: same thing for Phallus indusiatus, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Good articles (Participant Clean-Up)
Hello, you are receiving this message because you are currently a participant of WikiProject Good articles. Since the creation of the WikiProject, over 200 user's have joined to help review good article nominations and contribute to other sections of the WikiProject. Over the years, several of these users have stopped reviewing articles and/or have become inactive with the project but are still listed as participates. In order to improve communications with other participants and get newsletters sent out faster (newsletters will begin to be sent out monthly starting in October) all participants that are no longer active with the WikiProject will be removed from the participants list.

If you are still interested in being a participant for this WikiProject, please sign your user name here and please help review some articles so we can reduce the size of the backlog. If you are no longer interested, you do not need to sign your name anywhere and your name will be removed from the participants list after the deadline. Remember that even if you are not interested at this time, you can always re-add your name to the list whenever you want. The deadline to sign your name on the page above will be November 1, 2012. Thank-you. 13:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Update for: WikiProject Good articles (Participant Clean-Up)
Sorry for having to send out a second message but a user has brought to my attention that a point mentioned in the first message should be clarified. If user's don't sign on this page, they will be moved to an "Inactive Participants" list rather then be being removed from the entire WikiProject. Sorry for any confusion.--Dom497 (talk)15:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The Mechanics of Oscar Pistorius' Running Blades
Hi, Sasata. I added citations to this article per your request: Template:Did you know nominations/The Mechanics of Oscar Pistorius' Running Blades. Hopefully it's now good to go. Pkeets (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Malaria GAN since May 2012?
Hi Sasata. I notice that Malaria has been on the GA Nom list since May ... quite a long 2-week period. Further, the GA review page doesn't seem to contain a GA review.

Should we remove Malaria from the GA nom list now? all the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The review is in progress. Thanks for your concern. Sasata (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Bisporella citrina
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Go Cup Canada!
Wow...very nice! ;)  Rcej (Robert) –  talk  09:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Impressive! It's not a record, but it will appear on the leaderboard if selected. J Milburn (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I've got a few multihooks already that aren't on that board. Anyway, I'm prepping a couple more that will blow this octahook out of the water (if I can get my lazy ass in gear in the next few weeks). Sasata (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hands Up, Or I'll Shoot
Thank you very much for your work in checking the article! Greatly appreciated! Bahavd Gita (talk) 13:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Xylobolus frustulatus
Hello! Your submission of Xylobolus frustulatus 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! Secretlondon (talk) 20:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Entoloma mathinnae
Yngvadottir (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! However, there's quite a ways to go before Wikipedia's coverage of truffle species could be considered even tolerably adequate. Sasata (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Lepiota ananya
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Lepiota anupama
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Lepiota babruka
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Lepiota babruzalka
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Lepiota harithaka
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Lepiota nirupama
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Lepiota shveta
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Lepiota zalkavritha
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Boletus abruptibulbus
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Leccinum arenicola
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Phylloporus arenicola
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Cortinarius selection
I have reviewed and approved your eight article Cortinarius DYK nomination though I had some reservations about the articles. Thinking about it afterwards, you only stated that you had reviewed five articles, but never mind.

Would you care to comment on my Frog FAC. I nominated the article a week ago but it is suffering from lack of interest. I hope it is in better shape than Bivalvia originally was because I think I have learned from your helpful guidance in that FAC. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for reviewing the hook. Per here: "H4: Where hooks have more than one new or expanded article, there is no consensus whether an article-for-article or hook-for-hook QPQ is required. An article-for-article review is encouraged, but a hook-for-hook review is acceptable." In general, though, for my multihooks I've been reviewing more to help with throughput. As I'm sure you understand, October will be a busy month, but I will certainly review frog if it hasn't passed already by the end of October ;) (p.s. you may get more reviewers inclined to look at your nom if you review some of the other candidates at FAC) Sasata (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I quite understand your point of view. I'm not sure how competent I am at reviewing other FACs, and as you say, detailed scrutiny takes time, something that is in short supply this month. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Peziza domiciliana
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

FAC
What you say is true. He promised to contribute further to Frog and then went off on a field trip, then moved house and had no internet connection, etc. I told him I intended to name him as co-nominator and he did not object. If you would like to jointly nominate Amphibian with me I could withdraw it from FAC now. However, time is running out with regard to the Cup, and it would need to be put up for FAC again in the next few days, so you would have to do some work on it pretty soon. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I obviously have a conflict of interest here, so I don't want to unduly influence your decisions. I could work on the amphibian article, but I have another mushroom article ready for FAC as soon as my current nom is finished. (... and I have to do some more reviews too; I try to do 3–4 thorough reviews for every nom I submit but am lagging behind now ...) Perhaps it would be a good idea to inform FAC director GrahamColm of the background situation and see what his opinion is? Sasata (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I will do what you suggest and refer the matter to GrahamColm. However, if you do choose to join me nominating Amphibian I would be pleased, and you could still do your mushroom article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind working on the amphibian article with you if the time frame weren't so compressed. There's no way I could contribute in a few days the work you have put into the article in the past few months, and adding my name to the FAC wouldn't be justified (my original question was more of a hypothetical "what if" to illustrate why I thought adding Mark's name to the Frog FAC was unwarranted for a dozen or so edits and some PR commentary). I wish you success with the amphibian FAC (and I will review it when all this is over), but just don't think it's right to have two simultaneous FACs on a very thin pretense (i.e., following the letter, and not the spirit of the dual nom/co-nom policy). From past experience(s), I really hope to avoid final-round drama in this year's WikiCup! Sasata (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I have been in communication with GrahamColm and the Amphibian FAC has been deleted. I knew that nominating Frog in that way was a bit "iffy". However, I am disappointed, as you stated on my talk page "would you mind then if I worked on either the amphibian or the frog article for a few days myself and add myself to the FAC?" and it was on this basis that I withdrew it. You now seem to have changed your mind about this but I would point out that success with Amphibian would probably score you many more points than your mushroom article. And as for equality of edits, that is not necessary for a joint nomination. I was involved in editing Pelican in a minor way and Casliber offered to include my name as FAC co-nominee for that article but I declined, not needing extra points in that earlier round. :) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Equality of edits may not be needed by the letter of the rules, but I wouldn't want my name on the FAC unless I was responsible for a significant portion of the work. I will work on the article (as we discussed before, I'm a salamander fan), but I doubt I'll be able to do enough in the next short while to warrant a co-nom. Sasata (talk) 09:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. I shall be thankful when I can stop doing all these pesky DYKs. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 September newsletter


We're over half way through the final, and so it is less than a month until we know for certain our 2012 WikiCup champion. currently leads, followed by, and. However, we have no one resembling a breakaway leader, and so the competition is a long way from over. Next month's newsletter will feature a list of our winners (who are not necessarily only the finalists) and keep your eyes open for an article on the WikiCup in a future edition of The Signpost. The leaders are already on a par with last year's winners, but a long way from the huge scores seen in 2010. That said, a repeat of the competition from 2010 seems unlikely.

It is good to see that three-quarters of our finalists have already scored bonus points this round. This shows that, contrary to criticism that the WikiCup has received in the past, the competition does not merely incentivise the writing of trivial articles; instead, our top competitors are still spending their time contributing to high-importance articles, and bringing them to a high standard. This does a great service to the encyclopedia and its readers. Thank you, and good work!

The planning for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Some straw polls have been opened concerning the scoring, and you can now sign up for next year's competition. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Cortinarius argyrionus
Yngvadottir (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Cortinarius basorapulus
Yngvadottir (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Cortinarius caesibulga
Yngvadottir (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Cortinarius cinereoroseolus
Yngvadottir (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Cortinarius kaputarensis
Yngvadottir (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Cortinarius maculobulga
Yngvadottir (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Cortinarius nebulobrunneus
Yngvadottir (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Cortinarius sinapivelus
Yngvadottir (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter - October 2012
Delivered October 3, 2012 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter any longer, please remove your name from this list. → Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page. → Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 05:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Xylobolus frustulatus
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Tuber lijiangense
Yngvadottir (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Tuber microspermum
Yngvadottir (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Tuber microspiculatum
Yngvadottir (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Tuber polyspermum
Yngvadottir (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Tuber sinoalbidum
Yngvadottir (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Tuber sinoexcavatum
Yngvadottir (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Boletus pseudosulphureus
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Clathrus crispus
The DYK project (nominate) 00:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Geastrum fimbriatum
The DYK project (nominate) 00:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Lycoperdon marginatum
The DYK project (nominate) 00:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Phallus duplicatus
The DYK project (nominate) 00:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Phallus rubicundus
The DYK project (nominate) 00:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Scleroderma polyrhizum
The DYK project (nominate) 00:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Scleroderma verrucosum
The DYK project (nominate) 00:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Amanita zambiana
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Shroom ID
Can you ID these two golfball shrooms for me:
 * File:Golfball Shroom1 2012-10-07.jpg
 * File:Golfball Shroom2 2012-10-07.jpg
 * Thanks. Pumpkin Sky   talk  22:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like Macrolepiota from the top, but that's as close as you'll get without seeing the stem, gills, or a spore print. Sasata (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I can get to them. What part should I photograph, the underside? Would a precise location help? Pumpkin Sky   talk  00:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the gills on the underside of the cap, and the stem. In the future, if you find a bunch like that, uproot a couple and lay them beside an intact specimen for a more informative photo. If there's any young fruit bodies, put them in a group pic as well. General geographical location might help in some cases (i.e. eastern or western US), as well as a few words about habitat (in a forest, on a roadside, on a lawn, nearby trees, etc.). Sasata (talk) 00:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, some jerk decided to trample them in the last 18 or so hours so I turned some of them over, moved them together, and took the following photo. They're between a residential road and concrete sidewalk. A tree is about 7 feet away and some shrubs about 6 feet away. Will email you a bit more. File:Golfball Shroom 2012-10-08.jpg. Pumpkin Sky   talk  16:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ?? Pumpkin Sky   talk  20:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this got buried in my 10,000+ item watchlist. I think it's Macrolepiota procera; compare with other photos of the species here. If there's still some specimens around to examine, you can help confirm this by smelling the old fruit bodies to see if they have an odor of maple syrup, and seeing if you can move the ring on the stipe up and down. Sasata (talk) 20:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, I figured it had gotten "buried". It's been raining a lot so they're pretty much trashed now. I really appreciate the help. I'll categorize and rename on Commons now. Thanks! Pumpkin Sky  talk  22:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Appressorium
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Anastasia Avramidou
You forgot to add the AfD to today's list of discussions. I added it to the list Bgwhite (talk) 05:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. I'm not terribly familiar with the procedure, and bad at reading instructions :) Sasata (talk) 05:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * My pleasure! I enjoy nitpicking other people's work :) Sasata (talk) 09:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Boletus auriflammeus
Yngvadottir (talk) 00:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Biodiversity of Wales
Do you want to have another look at this nomination now that the nominator has added more citations? Im a little concerned about plagiarism in the Evolution section.-- Kev min  § 01:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding me. Sasata (talk) 01:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Coccomyces dentatus
The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Psilocybin recent addition
Hi, I want to ask you about the recent edits by user Zarnivop to the Psilocybin article, which you reverted claiming the need for secondary sources. The reference page cites three (PNAS, BjRsych, ArchPsyc) research articles. What is missing there? Thanks. --KDesk (talk) 21:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Per WP:MEDRS, claims for medicinal efficacy need to be cited to secondary sources, especially for featured articles, which have the highest standards of referencing. We can add these studies once they have been discussed in a review article. Sasata (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I added primary and secondary references to the UK fMRI study yet you still removed it quoting the rule about secondary sources. Please explain how my submission does not conform? Julian Brown (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * See the talk page. Sasata (talk) 23:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Amanita ceciliae GA review
Hi Sasata! I hope you are not busy, could you return to the GA review quickly? It has remained like that for about a week, and only very few issues are left. Better have it finished soon. Sainsf &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 08:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * WIll get to it in the next few days. Sasata (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Many thanks for your vote of support at WT:DYK; If you have any time to give feedback on the article, I would be grateful, whether a full review for DYK or just your first thoughts. I have paid attention to SYNTH and OR by referencing each sentence in the article. However many of those REFs were deleted by a previous reviewer, Sionk, after they had satisfied him of no-synth, no-OR, and no-essay; that left the article reading better stylistically, but looking like it does now. I have reworded entirely that paragraph which was raised as an issue. Further comments and my humble apologies for that one over-sight, are at the DYK nomination page.. Thanks again. ♥ VisitingPhilosopher ♥ talk ◊ contribs 14:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry if you misinterpreted my flippant comment as a vote of support – my personal relationship skills just aren't very good. I think the article would be better if it were stripped of all the necessary headers and subheaders, quotes, bullet points, etc., down to about 1 or 2 paragraphs of relevant material that can be reliably sourced. It's nowhere near being ready for an appearance on the front page. Sasata (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, understood. Thanks for the useful feedback on the content.  I'll start trimming it down as a draft in my user-space, then ask for feedback on the article's Talk page when the new draft is ready for review.  Yes, I am not expecting DYK for it at all now.  The time limit will be stale by the time I have finished (and I don't think 5-times-smaller is one of the criteria :-)  Thanks again.   ♥ VisitingPhilosopher ♥ talk ◊ contribs 15:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
I've left some comments on the review page. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Aspergillus sydowii
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Chroogomphus vinicolor
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Volvariella bombycina
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Hebeloma radicosum
Yngvadottir (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Agrocybe putaminum
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Ann Bishop
Hey, thanks for wikifying, copyediting, and reviewing my new favorite protozoologist. :) I really appreciate it! Best, Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 16:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Your promotion of Pictor
You recently reviewed the article Pictor and its hook for DYK. However, the reference that the hook is tied to, and the text of our article, stated that that galaxy cluster had a mass of 800 trillion suns, and somehow this was translated into the galaxy cluster having 800 trillion stars. The hook is not correct, a mass of 800 trillions suns does not equate to a count of 800 trillion stars each with the mass of our sun, and no other matter in the system. Please be more careful reading the hooks. Thanks. -Fjozk (talk) 01:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, blunder. I'll do better. Thanks, Sasata (talk) 02:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -Fjozk (talk) 02:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Hericium abietis
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK issue addressed, hopefully
Hi, thanks for your review, TEMPLATE HERE, of Seeing with the Eyes of Love. FYI, I think I've now addressed the issue you identified. I'll look forward to your response when you get a chance. Many thanks in advance -- Presearch (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Vulpicida
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Boletinellus merulioides
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Boletus carminiporus
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Boletus illudens
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Boletus miniato-olivaceus
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Boletus projectellus
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Boletus rubripes
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Boletus subvelutipes
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Phylloporus leucomycelinus
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Phylloporus rhodoxanthus
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Pulveroboletus ravenelii
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Suillus cothurnatus
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
... thanks – just trying to whittle down my "to-do" list ... Sasata (talk) 08:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Rhopalomyces elegans
The DYK project (nominate) 16:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Cerebral malaria
FYI, there's a student (#46 at User:Biosthmors/Intro Neuro) planning to take cerebral malaria from a redirect to an article sometime soon. Just thought you'd be interested to know. Biosthmors (talk) 00:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Very good! I'll keep an eye on it. Sasata (talk) 15:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The Expert Barnstar

 * Also two fungi on the way :P. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 13:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! But remember, "I'm not an expert, I just play one on Wikipedia". More fungi = Good! Sasata (talk) 15:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

GA Notice

 * Thanks for reviewing, Hahc21. Sasata (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I will take care of some more GANs you've submmited shortly :). — ΛΧΣ  21™  16:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Royoporus badius
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Ramaria araiospora
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Ramaria rasilispora
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Clavulinopsis umbrinella
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Tremellodendropsis tuberosa
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Ramaria stricta
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Ramaria abietina
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Ramaria fennica
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Ramaria acrisiccescens
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Roridomyces austrororidus
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Hapalopilus nidulans
The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Hello Sasata! thanks for your review. Currently I am focusing on Amanita gemmata, which seems ready for being a GA. (I feel it is much developed as A. ceciliae.) I am just going to add some more information about similar species, else it appears comprehensive. As you have significantly contributed to it, I wished to have your advice about the article as well. Sainsf &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 07:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, it's in the GA range. Put it in the queue, and I'll add my name as a co-nominator. I still have some stuff to add (and another copyedit is always helpful) but should be able to get this done before a reviewer gets there. Sasata (talk) 07:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Tuctoria
The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Orcuttia
The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Gyromitra caroliniana
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Cortinarius iodes
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 30
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.


 * Acrogenospora (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Broome


 * Turbinellus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Gomphus

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Ann Bishop GAN
Hi Sasata! I've responded to the majority of your comments on the GAN and am working on the last one. I do have a couple questions/responses, it'd be great if you could take another look. Thanks for the great review! Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 22:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

fungi stubs
as per my comment on WP:Fungi, do you have any idea where I could start? thank you for your help! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)