This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I have reviewed this article, and placed it on hold, pending a couple of simple changes. I've left a detailed explanation and some thoughts on the review page. Feel free to drop me a line on my talk page when you've dealt with the issues. J Milburn ( talk) 23:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Materialscientist ( talk) 12:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Somebody wants to put the Xeromphalina campanella up for DYK, but it has some minor problems in it which a expert in fungi can easily fix. Thanks! -- Stone ( talk) 21:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the review. Sorry I was so slow to reply - first week of classes, and I'm teaching a class I've never taught before. Guettarda ( talk) 01:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Materialscientist ( talk) 00:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Do you know of a good website that can be used for information on a species's taxonomy? Joe Chill ( talk) 00:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Materialscientist ( talk) 12:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I think this paper will have some answers, and this expands upon it. I'd be grateful for help in getting these but think the latter might require a trip to the library....and we can fill out another fungus stub :) cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Review done. Feel free to drop a line on my talk page when the issues have been resolved. J Milburn ( talk) 23:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering who would be brave enough to tackle the GA review on Ecology. A daunting task - not because of its quality - but the sheer volume of information that it addresses. Kudos for your commitment to the cause!!!!! -- JimmyButler ( talk) 12:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I am considering adding a few more dermatology-related categories. I have posted a thread at: Talk:List_of_cutaneous_conditions#Additional_sections_.7C_categories. Could I get your feedback regarding this issue? --- kilbad ( talk) 01:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello there! I've not interacted with you before that I can recall, but you're going great work here—thanks! With regard to this oppose, would you mind tipping me off about what database you used for these results? I often struggle when reviewing storm articles with determining of the correct levels of research and comprehensiveness have been reached. It would help if I knew where to look up information. I have access to most major research databases. -- Andy Walsh (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
You catch me just as I was going through books at the biology library. Jaeger only had a transliteration entry for "stypticus", and there is nothing in Stearn. However, I can cite "Styptic" in OED to calm down the critics, and this paper for the extra comment I want to ad that etymologically it's just a Greek equivalent for L. astringens. I'd love to cite a Latin dictionary, but I'm not in the humanities library and if we have any dictionary of Botanical epithets, it'd be at the botany library, across town. I'll add the two sources (OED and Forster) for now, and keep looking. Circéus ( talk) 22:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
...for being a right dick at the FAC. It's times like this when I know I take WP too seriously. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank You | ||
For your excellent and wonderful contributions at Wikipedia:Featured Article Candidates during the month of December 2009. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC) |
Well that was a nice surprise! Thank-you! Sasata ( talk) 16:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Like a Box of Chocolates... | ||
... your contributions at Wikipedia:Featured Article Candidates during the month of January 2010 are greatly appreciated. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC) |
I saw P. stipticus at FAC, and read somebody asking for phylogenetic information. I made a phylogenetic tree real quick based on the ribosomal DNA analysis from the article at cybertruffle, page 16. I don't want to step on your toes or make extra work for you, but if it would help the article pass, please feel free to use it! Link to my sand box ManfromButtonwillow ( talk) 05:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey, do you know about this? Similar in feel to the Four Award, but has been around a good while longer. You're more than eligible... J Milburn ( talk) 14:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. We've had some shakeups regarding late entries, flag changes and early dropouts, but the competition is now established- there will be no more flag changes or new competitors. Congratulations to Sasata ( submissions), our current leader, who, at the time of writing, has more listed points than Hunter Kahn ( submissions) and TonyTheTiger ( submissions) (second and third place respectively) combined. A special well done also goes to Fetchcomms ( submissions)- his artcle Jewel Box (St. Louis, Missouri) was the first content to score points in the competition.
Around half of competitors are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. 64 of the 149 current competitors will advance to round 2- if you currently have no points, do not worry, as over half of the current top 64 have under 50 points. Everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places in round 2! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! J Milburn, Garden, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot ( talk) at 00:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
New article. FYI. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 04:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 95% done with around 130 articles left to be swept! Currently there are over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 3 articles per person! If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. Per my message last month, although we did not review 100 articles last month, I still made a donation of $90 (we had 90 reviews completed/initiated) to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps reviewers. I would like to thank everyone's efforts for last month, and ask for additional effort this month so we can be finished. I know you have to be sick of seeing these updates (as well as Sweeps itself) by now, so please do consider reviewing a few articles if you haven't reviewed in a while. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 02:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I just came across something that might interest you regarding that species, but no time to type anything. Remind me to do it should I forget? Circéus ( talk) 02:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Sasata, No quibble with your 117 species-edit for Arthopyrenia, I just wondered if you could pare down the ones (345) I added, from the book you cited (if you have the time...) so there is no discrepancy. My criteria for what to include was admittedly very loose (only those on the IF list that showed no synonyms). Thanks. Hamamelis ( talk) 21:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Materialscientist ( talk) 12:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I've made many changes per your comments on the Gray Mouse Lemur FAC. I have also added a range map, sounds, and a new image–all of which should be reviewed. Thanks again for the constructive comments made thus far! – VisionHolder « talk » 15:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
We have been making a lot of progress with the Bolognia push, but we still need your help. Would you consider picking up another letter? --- kilbad ( talk) 03:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I think you might want to have a glance at this one too. Took me two minutes to find a glaring error due to bad sourcing (the species doesn't actually contain phallotoxins, according to scientific sources) not to mention poor wording (stating the species contain "amanitin" which is not only incorrect, but misleading: it contain at least three different ones according to the source I added), but I'm no mushroom specialist and don't have much time today for this. Nonetheless, I feel strongly someone with more qualification should try and give it a look before it goes son DYK. Circéus ( talk) 17:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
You've done a lot of work in ecology. Thank you so much for reading through and putting up with me. I'm going through all your suggestions. Once I am finished - I hope to go over the article again and simplify it even further. I have a lifetime to work on wikipedia. It will get done eventually. I wonder what this will all look like in ten or even fifty years? Thompsma ( talk) 03:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I made the DYK nomination for Armillaria gallica a co-nom with you and I. Joe Chill ( talk) 16:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
User:Joe Chill recommended that I ask you... I came across some interesting mushrooms during the rainy season in central Mexico (Mexico and Hidalgo states near Mexico City) for sale on the street. If you get a chance, care to look at these pics in commons to identify? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MushTaxco.JPG http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ShroomsSaleVCarbon.JPG Are they really edible? I admit I was chicken to try them. Thelmadatter ( talk) 16:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
What rating do you think Laetiporus sulphureus is? I'm guessing C class, but I don't have experience with rating articles. Joe Chill ( talk) 00:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I see a while back you inquired about uploading classical guitar recordings and featured sound nominations. Have you given it any more thought? I would love to hear your work. Jujutacular T · C 05:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Sasata! Can I ask you about some help? Do you know the real classification of Phallales? Coz I can't understand why this article shows three families: Mesophelliaceae, Phallaceae, Ramariaceae. And in article Mesophelliaceae we can see: "The Mesophelliaceae are a family of fungi in the order Agaricales". Something wrong with all this, I think. I tried Google: www.gbif.net, www.catalogueoflife.org, www.eol.org. Hm... Only reference in article - http://www.mushroomexpert.com/phallales.html - gives us Geastraceae, Gomphaceae, Hysterangiaceae, Phallaceae, Ramariaceae. May be this familia from new edition of Dictionary of the Fungi? I don't have any... So, please, help me, if you can. -- Adept Ukraine ( talk) 13:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
In Galerina marginata (great work BTW), there's this: "confirmed the occurrence of -Ama and ß-Ama" which is missing a greek letter. I assumed it is gamma, is that correct? As an aside, it looks kinda like phallotoxins are not known outside Amanita, but I can't find a source online (might have to get my ass over to the health library again to check on that). Am I misremembering? Circéus ( talk) 18:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps I could get your thoughts on my first feature picture nomination at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pyogenic granuloma 1.jpg? Please know that I am not asking necessarily for your support, just your thoughts on the image and possible feature status. --- kilbad ( talk) 00:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Materialscientist ( talk) 00:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not too pleased with the etymology bit. For starter, the second root is most likely ποῦς, that is, "foot", not "stalk" (which as far as I can tell was usually expressed with καυλός). Further it's not Greek per se, but a latinised form (the greek would be in -pous), and it's dubious there was a word haematopous (αἱματοπους) in use, so I'd be in favor of going straight up to the Greek roots. Any thoughts?
On a different issue, "Description" states the color is "due to a red pigment called haematopodin", but "Natural products" says haematopodin is "a byproduct during the decomposition of the native pigment of the latex." Are you sure you (or the source) are not confusing two different substances? The problem is that, apparently, haematopodin was found to come from the degradation of another compound they called... haematopodin B, which is the aforementioned primary primary. Talk about a bad terminological approach! Boy, that's going to be difficult to explain clearly...
Circéus (
talk)
05:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Materialscientist ( talk) 12:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Round one is over, and round two has begun! Congratulations to the 64 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our first round. A special well done goes to Sasata ( submissions), our round one winner (1010 points), and to Hunter Kahn ( submissions) and TonyTheTiger ( submissions), who were second and third respectively (640 points/605 points). Sasata was awarded the most points for both good articles (300 points) and featured articles (600 points), and TonyTheTiger was awarded the most for featured topics (225 points), while Hunter Kahn claimed the most for good topics (70). Staxringold ( submissions) claimed the most featured lists (240 points) and featured pictures (35 points), Geschichte ( submissions) claimed the most for Did you know? entries (490 points), Jujutacular ( submissions) claimed the most for featured sounds (70 points) and Candlewicke ( submissions) claimed the most for In the news entries (40 points). No one claimed a featured portal or valued picture.
Credits awarded after the end of round one but before round two may be claimed in round two, but remember the rule that content must have been worked on in some significant way during 2010 by you for you to claim points. The groups for round two will be placed up shortly, and the submissions' pages will be blanked. This round will continue until 28 April, when the top two users from each group, as well as 16 wildcards, will progress to round three. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup; thank you to all doing this last round, and particularly to those helping at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot ( talk) at 00:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone's amazing efforts in February, we have reviewed all of the articles and are now finished with Sweeps! There are still about 30 articles currently on hold, and once those reviews are completed, I will send you a final message about Sweeps process stats including the total number of articles that were passed and failed. If you have one of these open reviews, be sure to update your count when the review is completed so I can compile the stats. You can except to receive your award for reviewing within the next week or two. Although the majority of the editors did not start Sweeps at the beginning in August 2007 (myself included), over 50 editors have all come together to complete a monumental task and improve many articles in the process. I commend you for sticking with this often challenging task and strengthening the integrity of the GA WikiProject as well as the GAs themselves. I invite you to take a break from reviewing (don't want you to burn out!) and then consider returning/starting to review GANs and/or contribute to GAR reviews. With your assistance, we can help bring the backlog down to a manageable level and help inspire more editors to improve articles to higher classes and consider reviewing themselves. Again, thank you for putting up with difficult reviews, unhappy editors, numerous spam messages from me, and taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 02:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Hey Sasata. I just wanted to congratulate you for scoring the most points in the first round of the WikiCup! I know very little about fungi, but I've read your articles with interest from your submissions page. I think it's cool how most of us in the WikiCup have our own little niches we like to concentrate on, and I really respect the mission you've outlined on your userpage of ensuring all fungal taxa have a page. I think the difference between a good encyclopedia and a great, comprehensive one is made by editors like you, who are really on top of their game in focusing their efforts on a specific area and bringing it up to such a high standard. Keep up the good work! — Hun ter Ka hn 04:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Materialscientist ( talk) 06:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
File:Alpha Capricorni.jpg | Thank You | |
For your excellent and wonderful contributions at Wikipedia:Featured Article Candidates during the month of February 2010, you're truly a star! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC) |
Hi Sasata!
Well, as you can see
here, I'm no scientist.
Everyone knows that
scanning electron microscope pix are in
greyscale.
--
Shirt58 (
talk)
11:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
So... I'm doing a more thorough copyedit job on Galerina marginata and need opinion on some of those changes (issues of fact/contradiction will be at FAC):
Circéus ( talk) 20:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I looked at some of your recent articles and noticed that you used LDR. While in the process of re-writing the lemur articles, I would like to standardize the citation system, and LDR looks perfect. The problem I'm having involves organizing some very different types of sources. I've written the question up at Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#General style question involving LDR and more. If you have a moment, could you read it over and maybe use an empty sandbox (possibly mine: #9) to create a simple example that addresses each of the 5 types of sources, all in one article?
I do favor putting all references under one heading, and then using subheadings for notes, footnotes, etc. But I also don't want to violate any rules that might jeopardize a FAC run. If you need sample citations of each of the 5 source types, let me know. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I am taking your advice about ditching chapter names on simple books. However, I am now trying something new by using Template:Sfn on my #1 sandbox. There are two catches. First, I'm using a unique method (I think) for individually citing components of the book, which can then be linked to through the Sfn. (Is that organization method under "Cited texts" acceptable?) Second, I'm trying to make a case for adding a "|group=" parameter to Sfn, but not doing a good job. If I could get that feature added, I could separate short footnotes (for books) from my journal and web references. Instead, the latest suggestion is to use Sfn for everything. If I do that, I'd be tempted to format the references section into subsections: "Notes" and "Works cited", with the latter being broken down further into "Books", "Journals", and "Web". <sigh> I just wish there was one way to do this stuff. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again for your review of Babakotia. Every little tweak helps make that page look better and better. Back to this topic, though, if you look at my #1 sandbox, you'll see a new approach I'm testing out in the References section. When you have time, would you take a look at it, both on the surface and in the code, and tell me what you think? I use CITEREFs to link the notes to their sources, and that could be turned into a neat little template, which I discuss at the end of this discussion: here. If you don't like having the notes separated from the journal & web citations, I can change that. The biggest issue for me is whether or not you approval of the indentations I use for separate articles and chapters in the more complex books I work with. In my opinion, it keeps things organized, reduces redundancy in the citation (so I'm not doing "|title=..." for every chapter/contribution), and makes it easier to track down the source (book) of the material. Anyway, let me know what you think. I know the discussion I linked to above isn't going well, but I'm also talking to the wrong crowd. Sfn people generally don't like LDR, which is what I'm trying to use. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Just a heads-up: I'm probably going to push for another FAC with Mesopropithecus once it passes its GAC. When you have time, I would greatly appreciate an article list and maybe a copy edit to make the FAC go as smoothly as possible. If you can't do it, just let me know. Thanks for all your help so far! – VisionHolder « talk » 04:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Rumor has it that you have several articles that are eligible for the WP:FOUR award. Please come by and nominate them as they qualify.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 13:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I thought I'd have a go at expanding the brief and muddled Tremella mesenterica entry - but when I'd written something and returned to the entry a day later, I discovered it had significantly changed for the better... Beat me to it. I have, however, taken the liberty of adding or amending a few things, particularly concerning Tremella aurantia. The previous main photo almost certainly showed this latter species - matt, on a (burnt?) trunk, with a possible small Stereum fruit body showing. Hope that's ok. RunningClam ( talk) 13:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
So tomorrow I'll swing by the bio library to re-borrow Stearn's Botanical Latin so I can properly source the etymology at Armillaria gallica. Want me to have at a couple other species while I'm at it (I know I've been wanting to do Amanita onusta for a while...)? Circéus ( talk) 03:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
As a side note, you might want to be more careful when citing your original pubs: A. onusta's original description was published earlier and in a different publication than what you cited: when Morgan writes "Howe. Torrey Bulletin. Vol. V, p. 42." he is quite clearly giving a citation to the actual publication... Botanicus.org and biodiversitylibrary.org are good places to check for the availability of original material. Circéus ( talk) 22:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Calmer Waters 18:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Calmer Waters 18:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Both Collared Brown Lemur and Mesopropithecus just passed GA today and I'd like to start them through the FA process. I went through your list of articles on the former, so we should be good there. I forgot if you found anything on the latter, but I'm pretty sure that with all the cross-linked papers from Babakotia and Ucucha's FAC-quality GAC review, we should be good there as well. Anyway, whenever you have time, I would appreciate your review before I file for FAC. There's not a huge rush since I'm going out of town between Monday night and Thursday night, so I probably can't nominate them for a bit anyway. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Materialscientist ( talk) 00:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Sasata,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Phallus hadriani.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on March 18, 2010. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2010-03-18. howcheng { chat} 17:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Given that he's been inactive for awhile due to lack of time, I would personally fail this until he returns and can make whatever changes are needed. No need to keep it under review for 100 days when we have no timetable of when he'll be back. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I would just likely to notify you that the nominator for the FA candidate "Say Say Say" ( User:Pyrrhus16) has corrected your comments that you cited with the article. Can you check the article to see if all your concerns have been addressed? Thanks, Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 02:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello Sasata, would it be possible to get some of the PDFs you were referring to? I thought they were all interesting, but I hope to stay clear of anything referring to the genetics of the bog turtle (including things like its mitochondria and number of chromosomes). I feel like we have enough on its fossil records in the subsection named as such. Articles on anything else are welcome! Thank you.-- NYMFan69-86 ( talk) 03:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Materialscientist ( talk) 09:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Materialscientist ( talk) 12:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Don't know whether you're watching my Talk page, so I'm cross-posting this here: thank you :) You've done a fantastic job on the article—I don't know how to thank you guys for picking up the torch. I'd love to bring it to FA eventually; my break remains indefinite, though, so no telling when that'll be :P Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 03:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Four Award | ||
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Panellus stipticus. |
-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 20:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello Sasata, you have used some interesting resources for your article Boletus edulis. Could you please help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request, where Thorsten/Thgoiter requested two resources ( National Library of South Africa and AJOL - African Journals OnLine)? -- Toffel07 ( talk) 13:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of April. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 200. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. Hope we can see you in April. |
– MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 18:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Do you know anything about this fungus? The marsh rice rat apparently eats quite a bit of it, and judged from Special:Search/Endogone it's not the only rodent that does so. Ucucha 00:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
On behalf of Wikiproject Good Articles, I would like to express our gratitude to you for your contributions to the Sweeps process, for which you completed 23 reviews. Completion of this monstrous task has proven to be a significant accomplishment not only for our project, but for Wikipedia. As a token of our sincere appreciation, please accept this ribbon. Lara 01:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Materialscientist ( talk) 16:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I've attempted to organize the lichen pictures on the Wikimedia Commons, under the category Lichens. There are a fair number of pictures there, 2450 pictures of 445 different species.
My strategy was to categorize each lichen photo according to its species, and put it in a gallery for that species. This way any all of the pictures can be linked to a Wikipedia article via the {{commons}} template (as you pointed out to me). I also put each gallery in the Lichens category, so that there is an easy way to see what species we have photos for, without clicking through a thousand subcategories.
Hopefully this helps. Feel free to improve upon my organization.
Millifolium ( talk) 18:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks, especially for finding the citation Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Sasata! In article Physciaceae you combined Physciaceae with Caliciaceae, according to Outline of Ascomycota - 2007. Do you really sure? Coz EOL, IndexFungorum and MycoBank treat them like different families. There is the template in Wiki: Template:Lichen family taxonomy, and Physciaceae and Caliciaceae are different families there too.
Just curious. -- Adept Ukraine ( talk) 18:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
We're half way through round two, and everything is running smoothly. Hunter Kahn ( submissions) leads overall with 650 points this round, and heads pool B. TonyTheTiger ( submissions) currently leads pool C, dubbed the "Group of Death", which has a only a single contestant yet to score this round (the fewest of any group), as well five contestants over 100 points (the most). With a month still to go, as well as 16 wildcard places, everything is still to play for. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.
Although unrelated to the WikiCup, April sees a Good Article Nominations backlog elimination drive, formulated as a friendly competition with small awards, as the Cup is. Several WikiCup contestants and judges have already signed up, but regular reviewers and those who hope to do more reviewing are more than welcome to join at the drive page. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot ( talk) 22:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Funny thing, the description in this edit? It appears to be a copy-paste job from your own site. The other part was from California Fungi. Circéus ( talk) 03:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Royal broil 06:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Royal broil 06:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Four Award | ||
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Geastrum triplex. |
Four Award | ||
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Galerina marginata. |
Four Award | ||
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Armillaria gallica. |
Here's Another Barnstar | ||
For all those mushroom aryicles. As though you don't have enough already! — innotata 22:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC) |
Thanks for the barnstar/award blast! I just got my new issue of Mycologia last week and there's another dozen species to write about... Sasata ( talk) 03:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello there Mr. Sasata, we were able to use two of the PDFs thus far, unfortunately we were only able to link to the abstracts in the citations. Do you feel this is acceptable? Also, We're looking at putting up the article for FAC fairly soon (it should get heavily worked on with spring break coming up and all), is their any particular passage or bit of research you feel needs to be in the article?-- NYMFan69-86 ( talk) 22:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |