User talk:Sasata/Archive 22

Your GA nomination of Boletopsis nothofagi
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Boletopsis nothofagi you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seppi333 -- Seppi333 (talk) 02:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

FA congratulations
Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Morchella rufobrunnea to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA) appear as "Today's featured article" soon (either on a particular date or on any available date), please nominate it at the requests page. If you'd like to see an FA appear on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with about 1,307 articles waiting their turn at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. BencherliteTalk 18:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Boletus luridus
This is a note to let the main editors of Boletus luridus know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on June 20, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at present, please ask. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/June 20, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Boletus luridus, commonly known as the lurid bolete, is a fungus of the bolete family, found in deciduous woodlands on chalky soils in Asia, Europe, and eastern North America. Fruit bodies arise in summer and autumn and may be abundant. It is a solid bolete with an olive-brown cap up to 20 cm in diameter, with small reddish pores on the underside. The stout ochre stem reaches dimensions of 8 – tall and 1 – wide, and is patterned with a reddish meshwork. Like several other red-pored boletes, it stains blue when bruised or cut. Though edible when cooked, it can cause gastric upset when eaten raw and can be confused with the poisonous Boletus satanas. Hence some guidebooks recommend avoiding consumption altogether. Boletus luridus has been implicated in causing adverse reactions when eaten with alcohol similar to those caused by the compound coprine, though laboratory testing has not revealed any evidence of coprine in the mushroom. Boletus luridus is mycorrhizal, forming a symbiotic association with deciduous trees such as oak, birch and beech, and has been found to have a growth-enhancing effect with conifers in experiments.

You (and your talk-page stalkers) may also be interested to hear that there have been some changes at the TFA requests page recently. Nominators no longer need to calculate how many "points" an article has, the instructions have been simplified, and there's a new nomination system using templates based on those used for DYK suggestions. Please consider nominating another article, or commenting on an existing nomination, and leaving some feedback on your experience. Thank you. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Delayed review
Hi Sasata, Just letting you know my laptop broke so my capacity to do any substantial editing/reviewing on WP is somewhat limited at the moment. I should be finished with my review sometime this week. Sorry for the delay! Best,  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 01:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's alright; luckily, there is no deadline! Sasata (talk) 06:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I just got a new working laptop, so I'll finish my review by tomorrow at the latest. Sorry for the extra week delay! There may be no deadline, but I still feel I have an informal obligation to complete the reviews I take on, especially if they're for someone who has done me a big favor in the past.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 17:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Boletopsis nothofagi
The article Boletopsis nothofagi you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Boletopsis nothofagi for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seppi333 -- Seppi333 (talk) 02:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 08:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Volvopluteus michiganensis
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Volvopluteus michiganensis you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seppi333 -- Seppi333 (talk) 08:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Boletus fechtneri - Butyriboletus fechtneri
Hi, I think these articles are duplicite: Boletus fechtneri - Butyriboletus fechtneri. Regards --Xth-Floor (talk) 14:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The former is now redirected to the latter, thanks. Sasata (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. There's one more discrepancy. B. fuscoroseus and B. pseudoregius are listed as two species, but they are just synonyms. Arora et al. used the name Butyriboletus pseudoregius, but Vizzini et al. changed it to Butyriboletus fuscoroseus, because Boletus fuscoroseus is older name and has priority. Best regards. --Xth-Floor (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not able to confirm this ; Vizzini does not mention this synonymy in Index Fungorum no. 162 (nor is it in subsequent updates). Do you have a source? Sasata (talk) 16:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I found it in Assyov (2012). Thanks for the heads-up, I will make the appropriate changes soon. Sasata (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Than you very much. It was also explained in Šutara et al. (2014), where B. fuscoroseus was neotypified (detailed explanation, why the name B. fuscoroseus has priority, is described on pages 29-30). --Xth-Floor (talk) 06:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Engleromyces sinensis
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Engleromyces sinensis you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Engleromyces sinensis
The article Engleromyces sinensis you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Engleromyces sinensis for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Curve-billed Thrasher
Hello. I've made amends to most of the suggestions/corrections that you had suggested (and some of my own), but the article is that far away from the GA status (I didn't realize how awful and rusty I've become with article writing on Wikipedia until I read what needed to be done) feel free to rescind the GA nomination. Thanks for reading, and contact me on my page whenever you get the chance! LeftAire (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Butyriboletus
Gatoclass (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Butyriboletus appendiculatus
Gatoclass (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Japanese serow
Hi. I was going over the pointers you left me from the Japanese serow GA review (I haven't touched the article in a while). You said that a Web of Knowledge search turned up more than 400 articles—I'm probably using it wrong, but I'm getting no hits whatsover, whatever search term I use. Is there a magic spell I need to chant or something? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 03:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you using the Latin name (and spelling it correctly)? If that's not working for you, then I'm not sure what's going on, maybe you have some filter turned on? Alternately, try a google scholar search: over 1100 hits. Sasata (talk)
 * I was copy-pasting the names to make sure I didn't misspell them. Thanks for the Google Scholar link. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 June newsletter
After an extremely close race, Round 3 is over. 244 points secured a place in Round 4, which is comparable to previous years- 321 was required in 2013, while 243 points were needed in 2012. Pool C's was the round's highest scorer, mostly due to a 32 featured pictures, including both scans and photographs. Also from Pool C, finished second overall, claiming three featured articles, including the high-importance Grus (constellation). Third place was Pool B's, whose contributions included featured articles Russian battleship Poltava (1894) and Russian battleship Peresvet. Pool C saw the highest number of participants advance, with six out of eight making it to the next round.

The round saw this year's first featured portal, with taking Portal:Literature to featured status. The round also saw the first good topic points, thanks to and the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season. This means that all content types have been claimed this year. Other contributions of note this round include a featured topic on Maya Angelou's autobiographies from, a good article on the noted Czech footballer Tomáš Rosický from and a now-featured video game screenshot, freely released due to the efforts of.

The judges would like to remind participants to update submission pages promptly. This means that content can be checked, and allows those following the competition (including those participating) to keep track of scores effectively. This round has seen discussion about various aspects of the WikiCup's rules and procedures. Those interested in the competition can be assured that formal discussions about how next year's competition will work will be opened shortly, and all are welcome to voice their views then. 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! 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. and 18:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Why so sceptic on sour cream? (Amantia Smithiana)
Why so sceptic on sour cream? You can't find any name Smithiana over the world. Try this: https://www.google.com/search?q=-amanita%20%2Bsmithiana Seems I'm right? 94.140.231.246 (talk) 01:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The etymology is already sourced in the article. Your conclusion is original research. Sasata (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Rule says: "all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source." There are no such source for true explnation of surname Smithiana. And there can be no such source. Of course I could prove my point, but it would took 4 years of direct verbal explanation, 6 hours every day, in form of dialog.

Еtymology is already sourced in the article, but it does not explain origins of the name. You can't even challenge it.

So just admit direct knowledge.

I saw dozens of published resources that push fake. If I challenge Cambridge University, you will have to erase 90% of WikipediA. 93.190.204.6 (talk) 11:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * From the source: "ETYMOLOGY: Named in honour of Dr. A. H. Smith, Ann Arbor.". If you wish to discuss the etymology of the name "Smith", that should be at the article Smith (surname). Sasata (talk) 15:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Calbovista
Gatoclass (talk) 02:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Calbovista
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Calbovista you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 12:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Precious again
  featured pictures of funghi

Thank you for showing us in consistent quality the rich hidden world of funghi, in words and excellent images, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (28 February 2009, 23 April 2009)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC) Two years ago, you were the 175th recipient of my  Pumpkin Sky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Volvopluteus michiganensis
The article Volvopluteus michiganensis you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Volvopluteus michiganensis for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seppi333 -- Seppi333 (talk) 13:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Xeromphalina setulipes
Hi Sasata- my Xeromphalina setulipes is due on the MP on 14 Aug. Google Scholar is suggesting that there are a couple of articles which may mention the species that I don't have access to- I suspect they're just citations, but would you mind taking a look and seeing if there is anything worth adding? (I'm assuming you have access to both.) "Amplistroma longicollis, a new species and its anamorph state described and sequenced from Europe" and The Xerulaceae (Basidiomycetes), a family with sarcodimitic tissues" are the articles in question. Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi JM, the first paper doesn't have anything worth adding (it's mentioned as an example of another fungus recently described from Spain) and the second is a false positive (was published in 1987). Sasata (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking. Shame on me for not noticing the date of the second paper! J Milburn (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. Have a look – no more species redlinks! Sasata (talk) 07:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Equus cladogram
Would you be able to create a cladgram of the living equines? The graph can be found here. LittleJerry (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this year I'm spending my limited time here working on fungi. Sasata (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Would you be able to GA review Rodent? LittleJerry (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cymatoderma caperatum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mont.. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Good articles Future GAN Backlog Drive
Hello everyone! Hope you've all been having a great summer!

TheQ Editor recently proposed the idea of having another Backlog Drive in either September/October or November/December of this year. For those of you who have participated in the past two drives you know I was the one who organized them, however, come September, this will be my most important year in school so I will not be able to coordinate this drive (if it happens). TheQ Editor has volunteered to be a coordinator for the drive. If any of you would like to co-coordinator, please notify TheQ Editor on his talk page.

If you would be interested in participating in a Backlog Drive sometime before the end of this year, please notify TheQ Editor. Also, make sure to specify what month(s) work best for you.

At the time this message was sent out, the backlog was at 520 nominations. Since May, the backlog has been steadily increasing and we are currently near an all time high. Even though the backlog will not disappear over one drive, this drive can lead to several others which will (hopefully) lead to the day where there is no longer a backlog.

As always, the more participants, the better, and everyone is encouraged to participate!

Sent by Dom497 --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hyphomycetes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sporocarp. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 25
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.


 * Donkioporia
 * added a link pointing to Poria


 * Ischnoderma resinosum
 * added a link pointing to Taxonomy

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup
Hello everyone! We hope you have all been having a great summer!

As we all know, the recent GAN Backlog Drives have not had any big impact on the backlog. Because of that, me (Dom497), Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor have worked on an idea that could possibly finally put a dent into the massive backlog. Now, I will admit, the idea isn't entirely ours as we have took the general idea of the WikiCup and brought it over to WikiProject Good Articles. But anyways, here's what we have in mind:

For all of you that do not know what the WikiCup is, it is an annual competition between several editors to see who can get the most Good Articles, Featured Article's, Did You Know's, etc. Based of this, we propose to you the GA Cup. This competition will only focus on reviewing Good articles.

For more info on the proposal, click here. As a FYI, the proposal page is not what the final product will look like (if you do go ahead with this idea). It will look very similar to WikiCup's page(s).

The discussion for the proposal will take place here. Please let us know if you are interested, have any concerns, things to consider, etc.

--Dom497, Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 August newsletter
The final of the 2014 WikiCup begins in a few short minutes! Our eight finalists are listed below, along with their placement in Round 4:


 * , a WikiCup newcomer, finished top of Pool A and was the round's highest scorer. Godot is a featured picture specialist, claiming large numbers of points due to high-quality scans of historical documents, especially banknotes.
 * 1) is a WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist every year since 2010. In the semi-final, he was Pool B's highest scorer. Cas's points primarily come from articles on the natural sciences.
 * 2) was Pool A's runner-up. Czar's points come mostly from content related to independent video games, including both articles and topics.
 * 3) was Pool B's runner-up. Another featured picture specialist, many of Adam's points come from the restoration of historical media. He has been a WikiCup finalist twice before.
 * 4) won the WikiCup in 2012 and 2013, and enters this final as the first wildcard. She focuses on biology-related articles, and has worked on several high-importance articles.
 * 5) is the second wildcard. George's points come primarily from meteorology-related articles. This year and last year, George was the first person in the competition to score.
 * , the third wildcard, was the 2010 champion and a finalist last year. His writes mostly on military history, especially naval history.
 * , the fourth and final wildcard, has participated in previous WikiCups, but not reached any finals. Bloom's points are mostly thanks to did you knows, featured lists and good articles related to sport and national symbols.

We say goodbye to this year's semi-finalists. ,, , , , and  have all performed well to reach this stage of the competition, and we hope they will all be joining us again next year.

There are two upcoming competitions unrelated to the WikiCup which may be of interest to those who receive this newsletter. The Stub Contest will run through September, and revolves around expanding stub articles, especially high-importance or old stubs. In addition, a proposal has been made for a new competition, the GA Cup, which the organisers plan to run next year. This competition is based on the WikiCup and aims to reduce the good article review backlog.

There is now a thread for brainstorming on how next year's WikiCup competition should work. Please come along and share your thoughts- What works? What doesn't work? What needs changing? Signups for next year's competition will be open soon; we will be in touch. If, at this stage of the competition, you are keen to help the with the WikiCup, please do what you can to participate in review processes. Our finalists will find things much easier if the backlogs at good article candidates, featured article candidates, featured picture candidates and the rest are kept at a minimum. As ever, 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. and 22:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

chess
I saw that you edited many times Magnus Carlsen. If you are interested in chess, maybe try the demo that prepared.

I attach the games of the World Chess Championship 2012. In the English wikipedia you had to write the games down, add diagrams and so on, on the Hebrew wikipedia there is a fantastic tool that was developped two years ago - have a look at the demo: HE:משתמש:Yoavd/chessdemo.

I am interested in your view. You can scroll down all the games, then the fast games. --Yoavd (talk) 10:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Reverting me
I doubt that reverting my nomination of Carrot for GA was a good thing for you to do. Your action seems very high-handed to me. Would it not have been better, when someone took up the review, to add your comments at that stage? I would be interested to know what GA criteria you think the article does not meet. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll start working on it soon. It will not meet the stability criterion until I'm done. :) Sasata (talk) 23:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC) Sasata (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have renominated the article at GAN. I believe it reaches the GA criteria.


 * You are welcome, as is anyone else, to further work on the article while it is awaiting review or during the review process. This will not constitute instability but merely improvement. I acknowledge that much of the present article reflects your work and would jointly name you as nominator, but that seems inappropriate seeing that you think it is unready for nomination. However, I will add your name as joint nominator if you would like. It's not your article, it's not my article, but I do think it's a good article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I would like to add some material first and put it up for PR, so will remove it from the GAN queue. I will renominate it when I'm finished. (Doesn't make much sense to have the article content changing substantially while someone is trying to review it). Sasata (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back!
...when I saw that you hadn't edited anything in weeks, I was worried! :) MeegsC (talk) 03:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks ... I spent much of that time on the Great Slave Lake without internet access. It was quite enjoyable, even the coast guard rescue at the end wasn't so bad ... Sasata (talk) 14:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Huh. That sounds like an adventure. Glad it was enjoyable — despite the rescue! MeegsC (talk) 03:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ditto! M.E.Nuhn has resurfaced too so have already asked him about some beoletoid stuff....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey Cas, looks likes two new bolete genera were named while I was away: Exsudoporus and Suillellus ... just in case there wasn't enough to do! Sasata (talk) 04:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 September newsletter
In one month's time, we will know our WikiCup 2014 champion. Newcomer has taken a strong lead with a featured list (historical coats of arms of the U.S. states from 1876) and a raft of featured pictures. Reigning champion is in second place with a number of high-importance biology articles, including new FA Isopoda and new GA least weasel. , who is in his fifth WikiCup final, is in third, with featured articles Pictor and Epacris impressa.

Signups for the 2015 WikiCup are open. All Wikipedians, new and experienced, are warmly invited to sign up for the competition. Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may also like to sign up for the GA Cup, a new WikiCup-inspired competition which revolves around completing good article reviews. As ever, 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. and 22:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Lactarius volemus
An anonymous editor has just made this edit- I have reverted, as Mycobank still seems happy with Lactarius volemus, so I have reverted. I wonder if you have a view? J Milburn (talk) 15:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi JM, the anon editor is correct; Lactarius systematics have changed considerably in the past year or two. See the recent changes on Lactarius, and the new articles Lactifluus and List of Lactifluus species. Unsurprisingly, Index Fungorum and MycoBank are slow to make the changes. I will try to make some time this weekend to update several articles that are affected. Sasata (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, great- I'll self-revert and move the page. J Milburn (talk) 16:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Citation bloat
Per consensus, it has been decided that transcluded cite templates should be substituted. Furthermore malaria is one of the top 1500 most accessed WP:MED articles and previously there was overwhelming consensus within in the medicine project that these templates should be substituted. Finally my edit to malaria also standardized the format of the citations. The only change to my edit that I probably should have made was to truncate the author list for the citation. I would respectfully ask you to reconsider your revision to my edit. Thanks. Boghog (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have replaced the single instance of the deprecated cite doi, and removed the unnecessary 6000+-character bloat that you introduced with your edit. Sasata (talk) 20:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In my edit, 2000 of the 6000 added characters originated from the expansion of the author list of and was a mistake which I acknowledged above.  The remainder of the 4000 character expansion was primarily from padding parameters with whitespace. I can understand why someone might possibly object if these citations were in-line making it harder to read the surrounding wiki text.  However for the most part, the references were list-defined and segregated from the prose. Whitespace padding make the templates easier to read and causes negligible over head in rendering and editing the article. I therefore do not understand your characterization of my edit as introducing unnecessary parameter bloat.  Boghog (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "Whitespace padding make the templates easier to read..." Sasata (talk) 02:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "Spaces rock. I like to imagine that people who prefer no spaces live in very cramped, very crowded cubicles."


 * "Whitespace is character bloat". Boghog (talk) 09:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously quoting the rambling of a random non-notable programmer to support your whitespace padding theory? BTW I live in Canada, often in a cabin with no other humans within 50 km, so Phil's musing (and your attempt to deflect that onto me) does not apply here. If you didn't notice already, the references in malaria already uses whitespace to set apart parameter names. I suggest that instead of wasting further time discussing whether it's a good idea to have spaces before and after "=", "|", and every other template character, our time here would be better spent working on articles. Sasata (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Phil's musing as well as my quotation of Phil are both tongue-in-cheek ;-) The thought behind the quotation is metaphorical and refers more to a state of mind rather than one's physical surroundings.  While it may be debatable that adding white space to templates increases readability, it is equally debatable that adding white space increases template bloat. I agree that content is more important than formatting. Peace. Boghog (talk) 18:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thats 4 reverts
Would recommend you self revert and join the discussion on talk. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello? I'm already on talk? Sasata (talk) 00:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And you have made 4 reverts in less than 24 hours after not having edited that article in months. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What happened to article talk? Sasata (talk) 00:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not sure by I guess you have no intention to compromise or self revert so we can take this to 3RR. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Look James, if you must go off to 3RR and try to beat me into submission, that's your prerogative. I'm trying to keep the malaria article neat and tidy despite the inevitable erosion. I have plans to take it to FAC, and will submit it with list-defined refs, unless you can establish a consensus that the refs should be in some other format. Sasata (talk) 00:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You appear to be happy to edit war me into submission so not sure what you expected? Yes we are the two top contributors to the article . And you are unwilling to compromise at all. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Compromise for what? Your blanket revert removed a couple hours of work that I put in. What did you expect? If the top two editors can't agree on the reference formatting, then we seek consensus. Sasata (talk) 00:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The compromise was this . There was not a couple of hours of work in that. Was discussed here and here  previously with non consensus to move all the refs to the end.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Your revert was this, and yes, that was a couple of hours of work. Was discussed here ; of three editors that cared enough to comment (you, me, Colin), two out of the three liked the list-defined refs. Sasata (talk) 00:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions for improving the lichen article?
I came across your user page when I saw some lichen articles I thought were good and checked their history for who made them so good. I saw on your user subpage that you listed improving the lichen article as one of your tasks for this year. If you have time, would you take a look at my recent revisions to the lichen article and suggest directions for improvement, especially as to making more Plain English readability for a general reader? I know the reproduction section needs work. Thanks. FloraWilde (talk) 23:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi FloraWilde, unfortunately, the list of articles I want to improve far exceeds my available time … working on lichen has been on my "to-do" list for some years now without any significant progress, so I'm happy to see all the effort you're putting into it (and the new lichen species articles too!). I'll have a closer look early next week and see if I can assist. Sasata (talk) 01:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article: Notification
This is to inform you that  Chorioactis, which you nominated at WP:FAC,  will appear on the Wikipedia Main Page  as  Today's Featured Article on 22 October 2014. The proposed main page blurb is here; you may amend if necessary. Please check for dead links and other possible faults before the appearance date. Brianboulton (talk) 22:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Brian, I will do that. Sasata (talk) 00:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Boletus eastwoodiae
If you have time, the Boletus eastwoodiae article could use some help. Thiers 1976 confused things significantly and considered this to be Boletus satanas. However B. satanas is only in Europe. B. eastwoodiae is a valid and common west coast taxon.

I also fixed the Boletus pulcherrimus article significantly. It is different than the other west coast red pored boletes Boletus eastwoodiae and Boletus haematinus.


 * Alan do we have a reference for eastwoodiae's distinctness? I think this hamstrung us before as we were going to do it a couple of years ago....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you know of the molecular studies that the MykoWeb site alludes to that confirms their distinctiveness? What reliable sources can we use to contradict what Thiers wrote? Sasata (talk) 06:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Morchella sextelata
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Morchella sextelata you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 10:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Morchella sextelata
The article Morchella sextelata you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Morchella sextelata for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 12:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Albomagister
Your edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albomagister&curid=44371915&diff=633711345&oldid=633435080

Might be in error. The paper Deconstructing the Tricholoataceae said that Albomagister is probably mycorrhizal, citing that paper. I don't have access to that paper, but did you check it for the old name, Hygrophorus subaustralis?
 * There is no mention of Hygrophorus subaustralis (nor any other Hygrophorus) in Birkeback et al.'s Clavariaceae paper. Sasata (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

TFAR nomination
Please see Today's featured article/requests/Albatrellus subrubescens. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Cucurbita status
You may recall several users have worked on this article for sometime. CorinneSD just did a superb copyedit on it. I was wondering if you could look at it to see if it is ready for featured nomination or if it needs more work beforehand. HalfGig  talk  00:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll have a look tonight and leave some notes on the talk page. Sasata (talk) 00:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Also see the note I left a few minutes ago at Talk:Cucurbita, Item 13. CorinneSD (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Since not all sources give a first name, just initial, I guess that means I need to change all authors to "Smith, J."?  HalfGig   talk  17:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not strictly necessary; rather, make sure things like comma usage between first/last names and delimiters between successive names (comma? semicolon?) are all in the same format. The references are already petty "clean" in this respect, so it shouldn't take more than a few changes to get it consistent. Sasata (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Russula brevipes
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Russula brevipes you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gaff -- Gaff (talk) 23:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Pseudallescheria boydii
Sasata, thanks for working through P. boydii. I radically edited the student's article from her draft (at least as much editing as I could tolerate), e.g., |here which probably explains the tone. I know these references pretty well, and provide them to the students. Much of what this student included derives from tabular data in the Clinical Atlas and Dolin's Principles and Practice of Infectious Disease. To be sure I'll run the text through turnitin. Medmyco (talk) 14:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks OK with turnitin. Medmyco (talk) 14:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's good to hear, thanks for checking. Thank also for again orchestrating the development of several new or expanded high-quality articles on fungus species! I plan to copyedit and tweak the formatting on some of these with the aim of submitting them for WP:GAN. Cheers, Sasata (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the addition to the article Sasata. I did my PhD with Dave Malloch and spent some time working on some of the things he was interested in, this fungus was one. His description of Petriellidium arising from work he did in his doctorate was a sore point with the medical mycologists (notably my friend Professor Rippon) who felt the taxonomy had already been handled. My guess is that we haven't heard the end of it, and the most recent changes to the code will likely toss this back into Scedosporium. There is an ISHAM working group on P. boydii and things like it, and it turns out (not surprisingly) to be a species complex most of whose members are unnamed, which probably means that all the literature that has documented the fungus (short of the few reports that are tied to specimens or cultures), is dubious. Still, this article is better than what it replaced, and certainly better than nothing at all! Thanks again. Medmyco (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article: Notification
This is to inform you that  Albatrellus subrubescens, which you nominated at WP:FAC,  will appear on the Wikipedia Main Page  as  Today's Featured Article on 20 December 2014. The proposed main page blurb is here; you may amend if necessary. Please check for dead links and other possible faults before the appearance date. Brianboulton (talk) 00:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Please note date revised from 7th Brianboulton (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC) Please note further revision to 20 December Brianboulton (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Russula
I was just about to tackle the Russula synonymy, but I've seen you're working on it – so I'll let you do this ;) There should be a new phylogenetic classification coming out soon... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylototriton (talk • contribs) 19:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to take over ... I'm kinda jumping from article to article and have had enough Russula for a while! I was thinking about improving it and perhaps submitting it for GA, but if there will be a major taxonomy update soon, I'll put this on the back burner and work on other articles. Sasata (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Automatic taxobox for Psilocybe semilanceata?
Why did you revert my edit? It looks the same on the page and would update automatically if there were any changes in the higher taxonomy. How would a regular taxobox be better?

Dgrootmyers (talk) 06:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The regular taxobox is easier to use, and is already in widespread usage for fungal taxa pages. For consistency, it would be ideal to stick to one taxobox system for the project; changing the format requires discussion with other interested editors. The template instructions remind us "Please remember: There's not yet consensus to convert all taxoboxes to automatic taxoboxes." Sasata (talk) 06:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 1
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.


 * Vermilacinia ceruchis
 * added links pointing to Cortex and Parmelia


 * Fistulinella wolfeana
 * added a link pointing to Hidalgo


 * Mason Hale
 * added a link pointing to Parmelia


 * Pseudallescheria boydii
 * added a link pointing to Antifungal


 * Russula
 * added a link pointing to Mercury


 * Vermilacinia ceruchoides
 * added a link pointing to San Vicente

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:RX
. Ping me after downloading, so I can delete it. Regards, - NQ (talk)  16:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That worked, thanks very much! Sasata (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Ichthyochytrium & Mucophilus
I have to question the creation of Ichthyochytrium and Mucophilus. These are fungal taxa of uncertain placement; we don't even know if they are within Chytridiomycota. These articles are and will likely remain based on a single source. Though I am not familiar with either taxon, I doubt they meet WP:Notability. TelosCricket (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There are many more sources to be found on these taxa, as you can verify for yourself with a Google Books search, so they are definitely notable. Yes, you are correct that we don't know if they are in the Chytridiomycota, but two reliable sources (Index Fungorum and MycoBank) place them there for now. If more work is done in the future, we can revise the classification. Sasata (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Interestingly, two of those Google Book sources claims Icthyochytrium & Mucophilus are unicellular algae. Applied Fishery Science & Fish as Food, V. 2 This one suggests that Mucophilus is no longer a valid genus Ladies in the Lab All of these are reliable sources as well. I do not think creation of a page for these two is warranted. It may well be that these two genera meet the requirements of notability, but clearly, from a simply google books search, a lot of careful research needs to go into the development of a page for either. I still think you are in error. However, I recognize you as a senior editor and will do nothing. TelosCricket (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be good to add your findings to these pages, and indicate the uncertainty about classification. Sasata (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I leave the pages to you to do what you think is best. TelosCricket (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I wish to disengage from the chrytrids altogether and have taken these pages off my already too large watchlist. I do not wish to hinder the efforts of another good-faith contributor working on fungus articles, and will leave the content and organization of these pages to you and others. Sasata (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Because I don't feel like creating a new section, I will put my comments about Chytridiaceae and Chytriomycetaceae here. Index Fungorum and MycoBank are not authorities on fungal taxonomy; they are attempts to provide an easy means of referencing classification. The curators do their best, but records often lag behind current taxonomy/classification, especially with Index Fungorum. This especially true in groups, such as Chytridiomycota, where the taxonomy/classification is fluid due to frequent revisions. I will contact them about updating the genera I removed from the Chytridiaceae page. TelosCricket (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea. They have been responsive to changes I have suggested in the past.Sasata (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Wiki email
This and this might be helpful. - NQ (talk)  13:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Russula brevipes
The article Russula brevipes you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Russula brevipes for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. &mdash; Gaff ταλκ 22:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

fruit body vs fruiting body
Hello Sasata- I've always known the term with the -ing, and have only seen fruit body on Wikipedia. So I did a quick check on Google and on Google's Ngram viewer, and both showed fruiting as much more common. I know that's not authoritative, and I have no real passion about the subject, but I didn't want you to think I made that change to the B. edulis article based merely on my opinion. Eric talk 05:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought about this same question several years ago, and decided that since the Dictionary of the Fungi uses this form of the term, and the majority of sources I use to write fungus articles use this form as well, that I should adopt it too. I'm not sure how the N-gram viewer works, but when I put in "fruit body" in a Google Books search, I get about 45,100 hits, compared to 47,500 results with "fruiting body", so they're pretty close by that measure (not that I place much faith in these types of searches). Sasata (talk) 05:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I see. I learned about the Ngram viewer only recently--it can be useful for looking at usage trends over time, but of course it depends on how comprehensive Google Books is. Here is the comparison I did. Eric talk 15:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Slow loris
Good to see Slow loris on the Main page as TFA, - coming with a hidden message to slow down ;) - I love to see four names in a nomination,  precious  again --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Russulaceae
Hi! I did a quite big update of the Russulaceae article and wondered if you could help me revise/proofread it? With a bit more work, it could be submitted for FA, what do you think? There's still some refs lacking since I don't have access here to some good, general English language fieldbooks... Tylototriton (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow! Nice work! I will certainly help you with this; I'm actually (slowly) working on an update for Russulales as well. FA is a good goal, but GA is often a helpful intermediate stop. Will look over the article carefully in the next few days. Sasata (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks great - as an aside, Russulales should be an easy 5x expansion to get to DYK/mainpage....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hydnellum ferrugineum
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hydnellum ferrugineum you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article: Notification
This is to inform you that Suillus pungens, which you nominated at WP:FAC, will appear on the Main Page  as  Today's Featured Article on 4 January 2015. The proposed main page blurb is here; you may amend if necessary. Please check for dead links and other possible faults before the appearance date, and thank you for your continued contributions to Wikipedia's content! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice work! Gaff (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree! Thanks, Sasata (talk) 01:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hydnellum ferrugineum
The article Hydnellum ferrugineum you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hydnellum ferrugineum for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 11:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Ed
How'd you catch that? Are you following WP:ENB? Have you seen Education program/Tasks? Best, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What did I catch ... I hope it's not contagious! If you're referring to the fixes to the bacteria, I tend to keep a lookout for new articles about species not visible with the naked eye. I do peripherally follow WP:ENB, mostly to follow the submissions of a mycology class (HMB436H—Medical and veterinary mycology - 2014). This class, BTW, has submitted some great articles, but contrary to some of the examples you've had to deal with, the prof is well-engaged with Wikipedia and has quite a bit of editing experience himself. I did not know about the Education program/Tasks page, but will keep an eye on it and help out as time allows. Sasata (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Could be contagious (since I am miserably sick with either the flu or RSV :) Yep, I had just started monitoring the Wiki Ed tasks page, and you came along right behind me to add page nos!  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Roridomyces austrororidus
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Roridomyces austrororidus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 18:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Roridomyces austrororidus
The article Roridomyces austrororidus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Roridomyces austrororidus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 23:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Monotropoideae
Hi - I haven't been active on WP in a while, but recently have taken to expanding the Monotropoideae article, since I recently wrote a detailed and well-researched term paper on the topic. I've expanded it enough in the last week that I've nominated the article for a "Did you know...?" entry. A link to the nomination and also discussion of expansion of that article can be found at Talk:Monotropoideae. Cheers! Peter G Werner (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Good to see you editing again, Peter. I can format those citations template-style if you like (formatting citations is kind of a mindless, semi-enjoyable task for me). Sasata (talk) 01:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, thanks! I like the way the original editor set it up as a "ref name" list under references, and then simple ref-name cites in the inline text. I hadn't seen anybody do it that way before, but it's a really good idea - it makes content editing a whole lot easier. Peter G Werner (talk) 18:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)