User talk:Sasata/Archive 4

On WikiLeave Aug 10–16th
If you've come to tell me that you've reviewed a GAN, thanks very much! I'll respond to any concerns shortly after my return. Sasata (talk) 06:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

FP!
Thanks!

Two issues in Amanita abrupta
It seems to me that some elements in "Similar species" are not very useful, specifically, mentioning "other macroscopical differences in the annulus and the volval remnants on the base of the stem" and that "A. polypyramis has also been noted to be similar." without actually saying what the differences are makes the information virtually useless.

The second element is more straightforward: in "Bioactive compounds", it says "these two compounds have also been found in A. solitaria and A. pseudoporphyria," but the list opening with "including" actually contains three different aminoacids. Circeus (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I'll fix it soon. Sasata (talk) 20:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

FPC question
If you don't mind.  wadester 16  16:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Chaga mushroom
Great picture! &#91;&#91;User:Jatlas&#124;J&lt;font color=&quot;green&quot; size=&quot;2px&quot;&gt;&lt;/font&gt;&#93;&#93; &#91;&#91;User talk:Jatlas&#124;at&lt;font color=&quot;blue&quot; size=&quot;2px&quot;&gt;&lt;/font&gt;&#93;&#93; &#91;&#91;Special:Contributions/Jatlas&#124;las&lt;font color=&quot;red&quot; size=&quot;2px&quot;&gt;&lt;/font&gt;&#93;&#93; (talk) 00:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:Inocybe lacera
Yeah, if you could put my name on the nom, that would be great- the article still feels like my baby! I'll look into adding a little more myself at some point. J Milburn (talk) 19:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Lactarius indigo
Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible.

Please don't do that
I'm very sorry I did what I did, but I felt it was unfair to allow you points for drive-by-noms. I completely agree that we've changed the rules far too often this year, but like I've said before, it's the first year this has actually worked. This year taught us a lot of things about how to make next year's cup smooth and neat. I'm sorry I took those points, but you're a top dog in the competition this year, and I would HATE to see you withdraw. Please reconsider,  iMatthew  talk  at 17:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * At least keep trying this year, please don't withdraw! With all of the GA work you do, you're still in the running! Please, please don't withdraw. :(  iMatthew  talk  at 23:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

 * Thanks Adrian! Also thanks for your suggestions at the FAC which helped improve the article. Sasata (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Sasata. I fully second that & like to extend my thanks for your note—the pleasure has been all mine. It's truly been a great experience working with you on that entry, and I have no doubt in my mind that it would still be miles away from FA were it not for your tireless work and enthusiasm which made for very smooth sailing during the whole process. I really appreciate that you took the the initiative here. And, yes, I'll keep an eye out and chuck into Ascomycota and Basidiomycota whenever I can. I may be torn away from WP editing at times, and I'm also resolved to try my hand at peer/GA review to reciprocate for the efforts of the many reviewers at FAC and the prior reviews, but I hope I can contribute slowly but surely to these two articles. Thanks again & best wishes. Malljaja (talk) 20:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, me too - great job! I feared muddying the waters there by commenting on way or the other and try to help a bit as it went. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

GAN Buxbaumia
I've made some suggestions as a second opinion at Talk:Buxbaumia/GA1. Are you happy to move forward on that basis? --RexxS (talk) 02:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for your help with the Bolognia push 2009. Spread the work if you know any other editors who may want to help. Also don't forget to add your name to the participants' list as well. Regardless, thanks again! ---kilbad (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

While we're on it...
It seems to me that adding a comment once made about the edibility of Pholiota as a whole for a species that was never actually placed in that genus seems inappropriate. Unless I'm missing something...? Circeus (talk) 23:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In retrospect, yes. Removed. Sasata (talk) 00:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Galerina sulciceps

 * Nice! That barnstar makes me think Galerina would be a good name for a heavy metal rock band! Sasata (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Lactarius indigo 48568.jpg
Have you considered nominating this for FP status? I realise it's a little different from other fungul FPs (as it's not still growing) but I think it's amazing. I saw it and couldn't believe it was real- American fungi is so much more exciting than the stuff I find! J Milburn (talk) 23:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought about it briefly but wondered if the resolution at full view might not be quite up to snuff. But it is a really cool picture; I think I'll fiddle a bit a photoshop and see if I can sharpen it a bit. Thanks for the suggestion! Sasata (talk) 23:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Fredonian Rebellion/archive1
Hi Sasata. Do you have access to the Texana article that you referenced at the above FAC? That's the only other one of the sources you listed that I think could be useful, but it doesn't appear to be available through JSTOR, and I can't even find a website for the journal to see if I could order the article. I wasn't sure if you had access to the article or just an abstract. Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * I'm not sure what's going on, because nothing is showing up in the barnstar on my end, but here's what I said..."Let it be known that Sasata is quite capable of making multiple fungus articles in quick succession and alphabetically to boot!" --I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a message on my talk page. @  18:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I can do them unalphabetically too! Sasata (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've popped the text in the box for you :) J Milburn (talk) 22:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

For you...
Thanks Kilbad! There's lots more coming! I've got some derm-related DYK's in preparation here... Sasata (talk) 00:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Small thing...
With regard to cutaneous conditions, when adding a new unique disease synonym to Wikipedia, make sure to do the following three things:
 * (1) Add the synonym to the list of cutaneous conditions
 * (2) Create a redirect with a category (as per WP:DERM:CAT)
 * (3) Add the synonym, with a citation, to the beginning of the actual article

Thanks again for all your help! ---kilbad (talk) 17:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Scutellinia scutellata/GA1
We have a review! I've answered a few points, but I'll leave the others to you... J Milburn (talk) 10:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Your next FA
Hi Sasata, just curious to know what is your next target FAC after Polyozellus? Your work is awesome. - DSachan (talk) 09:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind words! To be honest, I'm not exactly sure, I hadn't thought that far ahead yet. Probably another one of the fungal taxa I've brought to GA, but I'd also like to try something with higher traffic. I have a collaboration in mind for Boletus edulis, but that will probably take some time to materialize (lot's of stuff to read and sift through first). I've also been toying with the idea of stepping outside my "mushroom box" and taking on something more personally challenging, like Great white shark, or Biochemistry. For the sheer amusement potential I keep thinking about a featured topic of human body wastes with articles such as urine, feces, and mucus. Of course, there's also the couple of dozen mushroom GAs planned, some featured lists on the backburner, and about a hundred DYK ideas I've written down somewhere that need to get written.... so much to do! Sasata (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks for your detailed reply. Biochemistry would make an absolutely handsome FA. How about Protein, Cell, Mammal or Brain? Good luck with your work. - DSachan (talk) 11:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Polyozellus
Congratulations on another FA! I'm sorry I didn't see this one at FAC. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. I have a structure for thelephoric acid in the works :) I just need to confirm an old source. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! If you get the urge to draw the structure for kynapcin sometime, its availability would probably compel me to turn that redlink into blue :) Sasata (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Done and done. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent! These structures are now being put to use. Sasata (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Kingsley's portrayal
Thanks for the GA review. It was my intention to portray Kingsley as the sources portrayed him: a slaveowner who was caught in conflicting times, getting rich off of enslaving people to whom he was attracted, and watching a much harsher system overcome his family and his ways. You intoned that there needs to be some weight to the other side of the "gentle slaveowner" portrayal. I hope actually that Kingsley is not seen as a one-dimensional stereotype in this article.

I searched JSTOR for "Zephaniah Kingsley" and "Anna Kingsley" yet somehow neglected to search it for "Kingsley Plantation". Will be doing that right now. If I take it to FAC it will have much more to it, of course. Thanks again. --Moni3 (talk) 12:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Marco Polo sheep GAR
Hey Sasata, I've spent the last week or so gathering sources and information, and most of it's ready to go in the article. However, I've just found out I will be very busy at work the next few weeks, so it may be a little while before I get a chance to put it up. Thanks for your patience. Also, that first paper you listed on the GAR page is already referenced in the article, and I can't find any information on "horn exfoliation" like you mentioned. Keep in touch here or on the review page, thanks!  Fl ee tf la me   ·  whack! whack!  · 18:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Take your time, the article is improving nicely. I'll add a blurb on horn exfoliation sometime in the next week. Sasata (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

be a bit more careful with the copy-paste creations
I'm not sure whether this was a messed up taxonomy problem or a copy-pasting, but I just removed 5-6 articles that had ended up in Marasmiaceae (I was looking for other genera that, like Armillaria, were not listed on the family page). Circeus (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean... I checked the revisions histories of the pages you changed and I don't think I was responsible for the errors (expect for X. radicata being categorized as Agaricales when it should have been the more specific Marasmiaceae). Is there something I'm missing? Sasata (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, Favolaschia is listed in the Marasmiaceae by MycoBank and in the Mycenaceae by Fungorum ... more research needed to sort it out. Will get to it eventually, mostly sorting out the Ascomycota now. Sasata (talk) 14:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to be a taxonomic mess (it does not seem entirely settled where Xerula and Armillaria should be) combined with a slight editing mess where categories did not match between articles (species had the Marasmiaceae category even though their or thei genus taxobox disagreed). Augh. Maybe moving the Armillaria articles to a specific category that can be easily moved to a different higher category would help :p There certainly are enough of them to warrant it anyway. Circeus (talk) 16:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Ramariopsis
That's a nice pic you put in the genus article! Would you be interested in nominating for FP if I were to write up an article for the species (would help increase EV)? I'm always hunting for more mushroom pics to get featured. Cheers Sasata (talk) 00:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. If you want to write up a species article, I'll stick it up on FPC. BTW, I'm not 100% sure on the species ID, do you have any opinion on it? Kaldari (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure yet, I'll give you my amateur opinion after the article is written sometime this week. Sasata (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, if you can help me identify this pink mushroom, I think it's featured picture quality. No idea what it is though. Kaldari (talk) 00:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Were you still planning on writing a Ramariopsis kunzei article, or should I just go ahead and run the FPC nomination under Ramariopsis. Kaldari (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, nevermind. I see it is a blue link now :) Kaldari (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good timing! Give me a day to fill it out with some descriptive details, which will help EV. I'll also submit for DYK if I can find something interesting to say about it! Sasata (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, too late. Sorry I didn't see your note first :P Kaldari (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Late reply to FA discussion on fungus
Hi, I made a comment here about the need for a general diagram in the fungi article. The images similar in plant cell and animal cell articles are: Image:Plant cell structure svg.svg and File:Animal cell structure en.svg, do you think it is possible to make a similar image for fungi? On a different note do you think Eukaryote is correct in saying that "Fungal cells are most similar to animal cells, with the following exceptions" I think that they seem more like plant cells in that they have a cell wall and a large vacuole. Great work on the species articles by the way! Smartse (talk) 00:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

GA review of Amanita abrupta
Hi, Sasata, I've posted comments at Talk:Amanita abrupta/GA1. --Philcha (talk) 17:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm working on the changes now... thanks for picking up the review! Sasata (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Bloody hell, that was quick! --Philcha (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The only content issue is remaining is citations for the taxobox. The main text only goes up as far as genus, so there are no citations in the main text for higher levels. At present IMO the rest of the taxobox fails WP:V. The good news is that, once that's dealt with, we're into the home strait. --Philcha (talk) 03:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

A malformed ref (see "Links check" in review), a copy query and a ce to the lead - then it's a GA. --Philcha (talk) 05:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice work, it's now a GA! Thanks for an introduction to the wonderful world of mycology. Thanks also for breaking my recent run of grinding reviews - I've had a few where sources have been hard to find to tie up loose ends, and one where the editor argued at length to use his own version of WP:V and WP:RS. Look forward to seeing you around. --Philcha (talk) 06:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Glad you liked it :) If everything goes as planned, there will be many more opportunities to delve into the mysterious mushroom world at GAN. Sasata (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The article that covers repro and life cycle in A. and friends? --Philcha (talk) 06:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fear not, I shan't forget my solemn vow to thrust the Agaricales and their sordid reproductive habits into the limelight. Sasata (talk) 06:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Re:
I've looked over the situation again, and have decided to give you the FP back. I'm terribly sorry for the trouble.  iMatthew  talk  at 17:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's ok, thanks. Sasata (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hold up, can you explain how you're making all of your edits without AWB or anything like that. You're doing some things (like 30 edits in a minute, creating new pages). That doesn't seem possible. Are you using a bot or something?  iMatthew  talk  at 22:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I recall explaining this before... tabbed editing. I open 20 tabs (or more) at a time in my browser (I have a 24-inch monitor), make my edits in each page, then as fast as I can I click the "save page" button in between pressing ctrl-tab to switch tabs. Rinse, lather, and repeat. You'll notice there's a delay between batch saves. Through much experience I've found this (combining similar repetitive movements) is the most efficient way for me to do things, especially as I'm trying to update and improve thousands of pages. Sasata (talk) 22:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's cool! Thanks for the explanation.  iMatthew  talk  at 22:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you can still add the GA. And why would that FP be any different than the one you submitted?  Islanders  27  22:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe you said you found a picture, but didn't do anything to it. You wrote an article for it to fix into. That's what Theleftorium did. Instead of him nominating it, Shoemaker did the work on the image and nominated it, and Theleftorium made the article for it to fix into.  Islanders  27  22:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Allowing those is really stretching the rules. So, if you could avoid doing any more of those, or at least submitting them, that'd be great (same goes for Leftorium, which I'll mention to him).  Islanders  27  22:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikicup
Just to note, even if I'm complaining about a few things, you do do excellent work. I'm more upset at the judges, who should know better than to say yes to some of the things they have, especially in the final round. It' entirely because of their failure to effectively deal with issues that left these sorts of things reach this point, where I feel I have to make a statement. I don't think they've even looked into the problems to any extent. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 210 FCs served 17:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I was upset a while ago about what I thought were rules being applied selectively for some contestants (thinking specifically of OR's FP this round and set of 10 last round), but decided it didn't really matter, as the competition was about improving Wikipedia, and it has done that admirably. I'll go with whatever decision the judges make about the "dodgy" claims. Sasata (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Phallus v. Mutinus
Are Mutinus ravenelii and Phallus ravenelii the same thing? Circeus (talk) 18:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, one's in the dog penis mushroom genus, the other in the human penis mushroom genus. Sasata (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My bad then. I got confused because they have the same basionym authors ^_^;; Circeus (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Kerry Slug
Thanks for intervening on this. It has the potential for a decent article, but was brought to FAC prematurely. I was reluctant to do to much since the nominator did not agree with several of my comments, and I lack expertise on mollusca. I'll leave my oppose for now, but I hope to be able to remove it eventually  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, just noticed the fungus's apotheosis - congratulations  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help in getting it there :) Yeah, the slug article will take some effort to bring it up to FA quality; I doubt it will be possible this time around, but we'll see how it goes.... Sasata (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Pictures
I've been uploading alot of images from mushroomobserver.org recently to Commons, you can find them all here, hopefully some prove useful. I've added a few to articles already. Slow going uploading them manually but I'm plugging along. Not sure how much my limited knowledge of Fungi would prove in editing articles in the Fungi project but I'll dive into it someday, right now my spare online time is just being used to upload images. — raeky ( talk 11:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's great! I'll definitely be able to use many of those pics, and I'm more inclined to write an article about a species if there's a nice photo available for it. Thanks for helping to improve fungi coverage on Wikipedia... there's still lots of work to do :D Sasata (talk) 17:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to make an upload script for mushroomobserver similar to Flinfo for Flickr. Should speed up the process of uploading, less copy & pasting at least, lol. — raeky ( talk 06:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok I have a beta version up at http://raeky.com/MushInfo.php I'd appreciate if you'd test it out, put in an observation number and it generates upload links that automatically fills in most information, also the thumbnail pictures link to the original size picture so you can just right click and save the original image from those links. — raeky ( talk 15:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, I just tried it a couple of times (MO observations #155 and #7704). The first time, after seeing a blank screen for a minute while transferring data, nothing else came up. It seemed to work the second time, but I'm not clear what I should put into the "Source filename" box at Commons... do I still need to first download the image to my computer? Sasata (talk) 23:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can't make commons fetch an image from the website, so you still have to download the image on your computer. The thumbnail of the image on my script links to the original image so you can get the original image that way. Not sure what you ment by first time it was blank... I have noticed sometimes commons has a bug (I think it's commons because I get this with other similar tools occasionally too) where it doesn't transfer the information for the body of the description/license info, if you click the upload form link and its all empty in the big description box just close it and do it again. Let me know if you have any more trouble.. lol. I think this tool is far easier than manually copying and pasting each element on the page. Faster. — raeky ( talk 23:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Coprinopsis atramentaria
Did you add everthing you wanted to to that one? I have been reviewing some other GANs so hopefully karma may visit it soon...Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah, I got distracted ... I'll keep an eye on it and chip in if the reviewer wants it expanded :) It's somewhere on the "to-do list". Sasata (talk) 04:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 's'cool. I just ate a fresh batch of this with blueberries and yogurt...interesting....Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Potential featured picture?
Just uploaded another nice one from Dan Molter. Think it's worth nominating? J Milburn (talk) 14:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... it's a touch "soft" (especially the stem), and maybe it's my imagination, but the color seems a bit wonky. I think the FPC regulars might shoot it down, but who knows for sure? Sasata (talk) 15:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup submissions
Hi, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiCup.  iMatthew  talk  at 18:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review on Budapest Gambit
Thanks for the review you performed on Budapest Gambit. I appreciated your comments that were all to the point. It was also a great chance and pleasure to have someone with knowledge of chess as a reviewer. Keep up the good work ! SyG (talk) 10:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Pseudoplectania nigrella
Hey Sasata, you nominated that article for DYK a while ago and as brought up, I believe that this would make a great Halloween hook. Any objection?-- Giants 27 ( c  |  s ) 21:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, no objection, whatever works best for DYK. I'll try to pop by later and tighten the hook, Halloween style. Sasata (talk)
 * Thanks, I moved it to: Did you know/Halloween 2009. Cheers,-- Giants 27 ( c  |  s ) 23:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

A favour...
Hi, will probably only take a minute, but I'm not awfully confident doing it myself- could you possibly cut down Portal:Fungi/Intro (currently just a copy-paste of the lead of fungus) to a single paragraph, still covering all the bases and making fungi sound like the most exciting thing in the world? If so, that would be great- I think the current summary is a little long, and would deter many from scrolling down to the good stuff :) J Milburn (talk) 23:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll have a look tomorrow. Sasata (talk)

Disciotis venosa
I'm looking at this article, and it seems to me that the line "one author notes that only collectors who have the equipment to check its microscopic characters should consider consuming the species." clearly implies that there are dangerous species, but this aspect is not mentioned anywhere else in the article. If the species is difficult enough to distinguish from others to require a microscope, I'd personally mention that explicitly in the lead, especially if this is a choice species and the other ones are toxic! Circeus (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'll be sure to add a "similar species" section and expand these points before it hits mainpage. Sasata (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Amanita caesarea

 * I recommend renominating this in a month or two- it seems clear there is support for it, it was just lost among the other fungal nominations... J Milburn (talk) 11:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Two images...
Hi- first of all, thanks very much for the shortening of the portal intro, that was most helpful. However, I'm here in my new capacity as a WikiCup judge, to ask about the two images for which you are currently claiming points. Have you made any edits to the images themselves? It would seem that current WikiCup rules allow only images that have been created or heavily edited by the user to count- the yellow mite image you nominated has already been removed from the contributions list; is there any reason these fungal images should not also be removed? J Milburn (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ummm, the only reason I can think of is that this is the first I've heard of the rule that a picture had to be "heavily edited" by the user. Are the 10-odd submissions of Durova's I mentioned also removed or reduced then? Sasata (talk) 21:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am yet to look into that, I believe iMatthew was looking at the matter, but I will take a look now. J Milburn (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I will discuss it with him next time I see him. I really haven't looked into the whole "restoration" issue with regards to the Cup... J Milburn (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay then...how do you think this one compares with the last
Admittedly we know alot less about the newer one. See any glaring errors? PS: Ain't forgotten about psilocybin, will take a look soonish. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * See comments on the talk page; article would benefit from an anal-retentive copyedit. Regarding psilocybin, I think I will put up for GAR shortly after another readthrough and copyedit, then if you're interested, a collab for FAC. I'm sure length could be almost doubled, especially the history section, describing in more detail the events around the initial discovery, and the 1960s experiments. Sasata (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Angraecum sesquipedale/GA2
You initially started reviewing this article on 28 August 2009, but there have been no further comments on it since 1 September 2009, and your last comment was on 31 August 2009. Please finish your review or it will be automatically closed and the article will not be listed. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Additionally, Talk:Marco Polo sheep/GA1 is another rather old review. GA reviews should not take longer than about 2-3 weeks. It's counterproductive to have them last longer. If an article doesn't meet the criteria after 3 weeks, it should be failed (but can always be renominated once the criteria are met). Dr. Cash (talk) 14:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Activating?
What's going on here? GARDEN 21:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Activating = uncommenting submissions previously entered as comments. Didya think I was dropping time bombs? Sasata (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Water Hemlock
Hi there, thanks for doing the GA review on Cicuta, I went through your suggestions on the GA review page; the suggestions were all helpful. Let me know if I've missed anything or if you have any futher comments (I added some comments to the review page). Anyway, thanks again. M r Bungle | talk  08:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm really starting to find this unfair
You're creating hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of stubs, and gaining hundreds of points for it in the Cup. Your competitors have all been trying their hardest to improve content. Doing what you do with "having a lot of pages open" or something like that, you've gained over 60 points in a span of three days. That's the equivalent of 1 FA and 2 DYKs, or 2 GAs, or 1 FP, and 5 DYKs. You get my point, it doesn't seem fair that you're speeding through by writing stubs, when they're all working really hard on FA's, GA's, FP's, etc. I'm not sure if you can see where I'm coming from or not, but obviously over half of your points are from the mainspace, while your competitors have not even reached 200 points in mainspace. This is supposed to be a content competition, and it feels like you're trying to find the easy way out to win this. I hope you see where I'm coming from, and if you'd be willing to take a step in resolving this, it would be extremely appreciated. Regards,  iMatthew  talk  at 14:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * First, some semantics. "Unfair" implies that I'm gaining some sort of advantage that is not available to other competitors, or that my methods are deceptive, or that I'm not complying with the rules. I trust you'll agree that none of these is true: any other competitor can do the same, there's no deception involved, as anyone can easily see what I'm doing, the points are updated frequently, and gaining points by mainsapce edits is one of the rules. FYI, I can get 5-6 points per hour, about the same length of time it takes for me to make a DYK. About 5-6 hours to gain 30 points, the same amount of time it takes for me to write a GA. About 8-10 hours for 50 points, the same it would take me for do FA. You get my point—where does your perception of unfairness come from? If you want to search for examples of unfairness, how about checking this out: this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, or this. Can you believe the submittor received 35 points for each of these, even though they obviously took far less time than the 6 or so hours I would have to take to do to get the same points. How about this, another competitor claiming full points for FACs, even they they were co-noms, and the FAC workload was shared between the noms. Not only that, because they were co-noms, they were able to submit FACs simultaneously, avoiding the "one submission at a time" rule, and thus gain an "unfair" advantage. It's all about perception, IMatthew. Anyone else who wants to gain 50 cup points like me has only to sit and work in front of computer for 8 hours (the "easy way out"). Sasata (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's clear you don't understand where I'm coming from. Of course other competitors can do what you're doing, but they all find it fair in not doing it. It may take you 8-10 hours to get 50 points and 8-10 hours to write an FA, but you're not taking the 2 weeks the FAC takes into account. But honestly, you're not understanding where I'm coming from, and I don't believe I can explain it more.  iMatthew  talk  at 18:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I understand completely "where you're coming from", but think your viewpoint is completely mistaken and somewhat ignorant. I'm not about to change my editing habits to appease someone who doesn't appreciate the amount of effort it's taking to improve taxonomic coverage on Wikipedia; your options are to forcibly remove me from the competition, or to change the rules again to suit your fancy, and have me withdraw from the competition in disgust. Sasata (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * iMatthew, your complaint also makes less sense when you consider Sasata is also writing FAs and GAs as well. I find my efforts switch between all four - stub, DYK, GA and FA. Sasata is also often reviewing articles at WP:GAN as well. Do people get points for that in wikicup? Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Casliber, there are no points for GAN reviews- this, and other things, make it more than clear that there is no abuse going on here- what Sasata is doing is beyond useful, and certainly deserves points. I am discussing the issue with iMatthew now. J Milburn (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, iMatthew has agreed to drop the issue. Sasata, on behalf of the judges, I apologise for any negative feelings, and, on behalf of myself, I thank you for all you're doing. It's appreciated, and I'm glad we have someone who knows what they're doing on the job... J Milburn (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks to the judges for being reasonable! Sasata (talk) 20:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me; I'd really like to be informed when my work is getting held to special scrutiny. Sasata's selections appear to carry an implied assumption that certain types of media would be inherently easier to restore than others. When this work is done well it appears seamless. I use no plugins or shortcuts; all operations are done by hand, usually at 200% resolution or greater. As people who spent last night in voice chat know, my hand muscles get so sore I stop and moan. If Photoshop edits counted toward the WikiCup my mainspace points would exceed Sasata's. Durova  331 20:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Durova, I wasn't trying to put down your work, just trying to establish an counter-argument against "unfairness" based on preconceived notions of how much effort it takes to do certain tasks. FWIW, I have CTS acquired from years of playing too many video games, so I'm also hurting after a few hours of typing at the keyboard. But then again, I'm a masochist, so maybe that's an unfair advantage for me? :) Sasata (talk) 20:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually it appears you have recycled an argument you raised previously when I asked the judges for a decision about "freebie" points for FPs that get promoted without any photography or image editing at all. I heard you were raising this complaint again in IRC today, and then found this at your user talk again too, and am quite disappointed that you seem to be doing this off the Cup pages and on IRC, attempting to influence the judges without offering me any regular opportunity to defend myself--or even to know that you make this an issue.  No one's points have been the subject of more complaints than yours.  So please, let's be sporting and drop this matter.  Durova  331 20:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You've been misinformed, I've never been on IRC, and never plan to be. Yes, these were arguments I've brought up before, but have had no explicit response to them previously—so I'm supposed to forget about them? Yes, this discussion is at my user page, because I was responding to a query from a judge, and it seemed like a logical place to discuss the matter. Yes, my points have been the subject of more complaints then the other finalists, because I've been avoiding complaining about the other finalists' points, until the recent provocations. Are we good now? And yes, I'm more than happy to drop the matter. Sasata (talk) 20:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I can attest to the fact that each and every restoration takes hours if not days of work. I've tried a few myself, and frankly I've been overwhelmed by the amount of labor that's required; it's utterly amazing that prolific media contributors such as Durova have produced so much high-quality content using this method. Stating otherwise is nothing short of an insult to people who do such work, and I encourage those who doubt the validity of image restoration to try it for themselves. Respectfully, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 21:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again, I have nothing but respect for Durova's numerous contributions, and have tried to make that clear in these numerous productivity-decreasing conversations. I do not doubt the "validity" of image restoration, and in fact have done so myself, e.g. this took about 3 hours of work. " I can attest to the fact that each and every restoration takes hours if not days of work." Sorry, I was not aware you were watching her do the restorations... :) Sasata (talk) 21:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I do effectively "watch" her do some of the restorations. I spend quite a bit of time conversing with her on Skype whilst she's working. (Just to avoid confusion, I was not asked to comment here.) – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 21:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Julian. Sasata, I apologize if I misunderstood or placed too much credence in the secondhand news about IRC.  Heading back to Photoshop now; any judges who have questions about anything are welcome to make contact but I might go out later.  Durova  331 21:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)