User talk:Sasata/Archive 7

Talk:Ecology/GA1

Hey. Is this review going to be wrapped up soon? You and the reviewer have done a lot of work on it, but the last comment by either was nearly a month ago. Hopefully this can be kick-re-started and wrapped up, it'd be great to have as a GA :) Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Suillus quiescens

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

Materialscientist (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Physciaceae

Hi, Sasata! Again, Physciaceae: you wrote about 17 genera (and now 18 in article (?!)), but there 44 of them. And I don't have book, so can not check it. As site told me, the book have largely same systematics (http://www.indexfungorum.org - Classification based on 10th edition of the Dictionary of the Fungi (largely AFTOL)). Can you help me understand it? --Adept Ukraine (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

As I understand there is many synonyms (among 44 genera). But still, is there any good place online to check classification? And 17 or 18? --Adept Ukraine (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I just removed one from the list (mistake leftover from last edit), so it's down to 17 genera now, all of which I cross checked in the Dictionary, so that article should be taxonomically correct now. I randomly checked some of the genera names from the Fungorum list, but they were all synonyms or invalid names. The Physciaceae entry in the Dictionary mentions 27 synonyms (in addition to the 17 genera), so I think it all adds up :) Sasata (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

And about an online site to check, I've found that the Catalogue of Life (2010 checklist) does a pretty good job of listing taxa correctly above species level (I think they get data from Fungorum). Sasata (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Checked all of 44 one by one - there is really only 17:) Thanks for link, but their Physciaceae has only 12 genera. Pretty good though. --Adept Ukraine (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

And one more question (Teloschistales), sorry: Index Fungorum - Caliciaceae, Letrouitiaceae, Megalosporaceae, Microcaliciaceae, Physciaceae, Ropalosporaceae, Teloschistaceae; Outline of Ascomycota - 2007 - Letrouitiaceae, Megalosporaceae, Physciaceae, Teloschistaceae. As you can see, this systems are not very friendly to each other%) Don't you think, that there must be only one?

Have now updated to the Dictionary taxonomy: 5 families. Sasata (talk) 06:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

And a little one: Lecanoromycetidae contains only one order, and it is not Teloschistales. Why? (And see this) --Adept Ukraine (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a problem with on relying on a 2-year old classification system—it's out of date now! Article updated. Thanks for helping root out these errors. Sasata (talk) 06:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Better late than never...

Been away for a few days - where I was there were a stack of (weedy) Amanita muscaria and lactarius deliciosus - I did chop a few in half and take cross section photos which I'll upload later today (no damn Grey Currawongs but plenty of Telopea speciosissima and Yellow-tailed Black Cockatoo photo ops :)) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Very good! That will be a useful encyclopedic addition to the article. Have been musing about L. deliciosus in the back of my mind; I ordered the 2009 Lactarius book and am anxiously awaiting its arrival. Sasata (talk) 22:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Sarcoscypha occidentalis

On April 7, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sarcoscypha occidentalis, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hershkovitz

See User talk:Ucucha#hrshkvtzaol.com. Ucucha 01:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

That is excellent! Perhaps he can clarify the retirement date, and make some photographs available for us. I will push the article higher up on my "To-do" list. Sasata (talk) 02:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. :-) I'll try to find time for it soon. Ucucha 13:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Clavaria

On April 12, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Clavaria, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Tigran Petrosian

Hi there! I've been working on Tigran Petrosian lately. I've only managed to find three useful books at my local library, and I've just about sucked them dry for information. I plan on going to the library in my hometown in a few weeks, but in the meantime I was wondering if you would like to give some feedback on what I've written so far. I remember you making a few edits to Pirc Defence, Austrian Attack and I reviewed Lactarius indigo for you a while back, so this seemed like a good collaboration for us!

If you're interested, the sections of the article that I've worked on are Early Years, 1963 World Championship (though that's far from comprehensive), and Playing Style (which I'm particularly happy with thus far). --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure! I'll have a look tonight. I'm sure I could add some info from my own chess library too. What's your plan, GA/FA? Sasata (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to take it to FA at some point, as it's been a while since I've submitted an article through FAC. I've never done serious work on a biography, though I don't know if I should count that as a bad thing (because I'm inexperienced in bio FAs) or a good thing (because I like trying new things). Whatever, we'll see what happens. At the very least I'd like to make a comprehensive article with a good layout. WP:CHESS has a few GAs on grandmasters (Alexander Alekhine, Adolf Anderssen, Emanuel Lasker), though they don't have a consistent layout. I think the problem is that there just aren't enough grandmaster articles that have been seriously worked on for there to be one format that is recognizably better than the others. The solution is to simply improve more grandmaster articles, which is what I'd like to do with Petrosian. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'll help with whatever I can. I've been thinking on working on Magnus Carlsen myself, but am in the same boat as you, never having worked on a (non-scientist) bio before. I have a stack of New in Chess magazines going back many years, so finding good info won't be a problem. Same thoughts with Hikaru Nakamura; I'll be seeing him later at a tournament this year, and am thinking I can probably convince him to donate some photos to the Wikipedia cause if there's a good article to go with them. Sasata (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Cool! Most of the sources I currently have access to are fairly old (1970s), so I don't know how much help I'd be on the research side, but I'd be happy to lend my eye to Magnus Carlsen whenever you get started. The article definitely suffers from WP:Recentism: lots of information, but mostly thrown together without any rhyme or reason. How far back do your New in Chess magazines go? Any chance there's be some stuff on Petrosian in there? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I read the article; it's a good start (and I do like the playing style section), but there's so much more info that could be added. Some suggestions:

• complete tournament/match record - this might be better split into sections such as pre world-champion, as WC, and post WC
• a section on the 1969 match; separate out the opening stuff into a new section "Contributions to opening theory" and expand
• more pictures, but this will be difficult. Might have to use some chess contacts and see if they have anything they could donate.

Regarding New In Chess, my collection goes back about a decade. I vaguely recall an article in one of them, but unfortunately I cannot find an index to back issues on the net, so I'd have to go through each to find them (which wouldn't be so bad, I was planning to do that anyways for the Carlsen article). Anyway, if you'd like to make this an 'official' collaboration, I'll order a few Petrosian books (there this, this, this look potentially useful) and we can work towards eventually getting this to FA. Sound like a plan? Sasata (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, let's go for it! I just visited the Boston Public Library (which supposedly has books about Petrosian), but sadly all I could find was a handful of useful facts from other GMs. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll get those books and start hunting through my mags. Progress will probably be a little slow initially, but there's no time limit, eh? Sasata (talk) 02:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Eh indeed, I'm in no rush. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your impeccable scrutiny of my GAC and FACs. If my articles are "impressive", it's only because of your thorough reviews. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: Please note that whenever I challenge you, it's not personal. I'm just trying to grow as an editor. Unfortunately, it just feels like the target is always moving, so it's hard to know what to aim for. You're a great editor, and you certainly set the bar for many of us. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! That's the advantage/disadvantage of GA, it's based on only one editor's opinion. Hopefully I helped improve the article a bit, but really, there wasn't much room for improvement! I suspect the FAC will be smooth. Sasata (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Gasteroid fungi

On 13 April, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gasteroid fungi, which you recently nominated. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Eloise sources

Hi Sasata. I went to revisit the Hurricane Eloise article and look through the sources you listed, but sadly after checking about a half dozen, I can't find the full texts of any of the journals. Do you know of any convenient/free databases that would have at least a few of the journals I'm looking for? Thanks in advance. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know of any free databases like that, but I suspect that all or most of these articles could be obtained through interlibrary loan from a university library. If you send me an email, I can send PDFs of the ones I can access online. Sasata (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

That would be great. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

GAN backlog elimination drive - 1 week to go

First off, on behalf of myself and my co-coordinator Wizardman, I would like to thank you for the efforts that you have made so far in this GAN backlog elimination drive. It has been nothing short of a success, and that is thanks to you. See this Signpost article about what this drive has achieved so far. We're currently heading into the final week of the drive. At this time, if you have any GANs on review or on hold, you should be finishing off those reviews. Right now, we have more GANs on review or on hold than we do unreviewed. If you're going to start a GA review, please do so now so you can complete it by the end of the month and so that the nominator has a full 7-day window to address any concerns. See you at the finish!

–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 16:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Organising details for cited books

Hi, Sasata, last year at Talk:Annelid/GA1 you commented "It seems fairly ridiculous, for example, to give the full details including ISBN for the Ruppert et al (2004) book 16 times", and I'm trying to work out a scheme for myself. Variations I've seen in "my" articles:

• Book by 1 author / team (Ruppert et al) but need to cite different chapters and often sections within these.
• Book by 1 editor, chapters by separate authors, e.g. Rouse in Anderson at Annelid.
• Book by 1 editor, chapter by separate author, separate sections within this - e.g. Hinde's chapter in Anderson has sections on different phyla (Cnidaria and Ctenophora.
• Book used only once (so far). The obvious options are: use the simply way (ref & citation in 1 package); or go for inconsistency at the cost of using the more complex way up front.

Just to make things more difficult for myself :-(

• I dislike showing only page numbers up front. They could make the editor's job very easy, but: they hide the info about about chapters, sections and (in compilations) author; this also makes it difficult to readers to use different editions, a hazard of libraries.
• I'd like to link from the ref to the biblio details, as at Warcraft: Orcs & Humans or Dragon's Egg, but also with highlight of the biblio details.

Many ideas? --Philcha (talk) 10:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Philcha. User Visionholder has wrestled with exactly these issues (see here for initial discussion], and has figured out a solution using anchors and templates. I don't understand the details completely, but check out Lemur evolutionary history or Lemur to see if you like the results. Sasata (talk) 13:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

My approach is to use a shortened version in the note, e.g. Author, A "Chapter title", in Editor, Book, pp. x-y. etc. See for example Greenlandic language, notes #31 and 79. Circéus (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, everyone, I've copied this to my Talk page and hope everyone will continue there, to avoid overloading Sasata's page. --Philcha (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Tremellaceae

On 25 April, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tremellaceae, which you recently nominated. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow

Congratulations on the new FA article!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 13:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks like your effort is coming along nicely too! Sasata (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Ahhh...I don't know, its a bumpy road, you know...--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Citing an un-linkable book

Hello again, I noticed in your Coprinellus micaceus article you had cited some books. How would this be done with this reference (I have it in an in-line format):

I changed it no nowiki format: Sasata (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

<ref name='RoNC1995'>{{cite book | last = Palmer | first = William | authorlink = | coauthors = Alvin L. Braswell | title = Reptiles of North Carolina | publisher = The University of North Carolina Press | date = 1995 | location = Chapel HIll, North Carolina | pages = 49-52 | url = | doi = | id = | isbn = 0-8078-2158-6 }}</ref>

This would help out a lot with some of the remaining comments. Thanks much!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Make sure you have the actual page #'s that you used (particularly the second example); use endashes for the page ranges; remove the empty parameters; Pearson shouldnd't be all caps; other than that looks good to go, just use them in the same way you would any other citation. Sasata (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Something must be wrong with this URL: http://toolserver.org/~magnus/makeref.php

The second half isn't from the reference, it should stop after the initial isbn number?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

i removed the second (mysterious) one.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, how would I anchor it?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't used anchors myself in reference formating, but I'm guessing it would go like this: {{Anchor|CITEREFPalmer1995}}{{cite book | last = Palmer | first = William | authorlink = | coauthors = Alvin L. Braswell | title = Reptiles of North Carolina | publisher = The University of North Carolina Press | date = 1995 | location = Chapel Hill, North Carolina | pages = 49–52 | isbn = 0-8078-2158-6 |ref=harv}} Sasata (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That looks great :). After anchored, would the in-line uses be similar to <ref name='RoNC1995'p50/> based on page number (I am having some more trouble with it)?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

<-Define it like this on your first usage: <ref name="Palmer 1995 50">{{Harvnb|Palmer|1995|p=50}}</ref> and then if you cite that page again, you'd just use "... turtles are cool."<ref name="Palmer 1995 50"/> Sasata (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks again, you're a saint.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem (though I'm more sinner than saint). Sasata (talk) 23:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Haha, okay <{: -) --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hypholoma fasciculare 2

Hi Sasata, I just wanted to let you know that I re-nominated for FP the image you nominated, here, last year. I used your reasoning, too, :) It passed! Maedin\^talk 07:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Good! I had forgotten all about that one. Sometime I will work on the article so it better befits the picture's present glory :) Sasata (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Review of closure process 2

Because you've contributed to FPC either recently or in the past, I'm letting you know about the above poll on the basis of which we may develop proposals to change our procedures and criteria. Regards, Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 April newsletter

Round two is over, and we are down to our final 32. For anyone interested in the final standings (though not arranged by group) this page has been compiled. Congratulations to Hunter Kahn (submissions), our clear overall round winner, and to ThinkBlue (submissions) and Arsenikk (submissions), who were solidly second and third respectively. There were a good number of high scorers this round- competition was certainly tough! Round three begins tomorrow, but anything promoted after the end of round two is eligible for points. 16 contestants (eight pool leaders and eight wildcards) will progress to round four in two months- things are really starting to get competitive. 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.

Judge iMatthew has retired from Wikipedia, and we wish him the best. The competition has been ticking over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. A special thank you goes to participants Stone (submissions) and White Shadows (submissions) for their help in preparing for round three. Good luck everyone! 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 and The ed17 17:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation in the April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive

GAN backlog elimination drives chart up to 1 May On behalf of my co-coordinator Wizardman, I'd like to especially thank you for your efforts over this past month's GAN backlog elimination drive. It has been nothing short of a complete success, which hopefully results in more expedient good article reviews, increasing users' confidence in the good article nomination processes. Even if you made just a small contribution, it still helped contribute to the success of this drive. Here is what we have accomplished this last month in this drive. 661 total nominations were reviewed. 541 of them passed (~81.8%), 97 (~14.7%) failed, and 23 (~3.5%) ended on hold. The WP:GAN page started at 110,126 bytes length on 1 April and ended at 43,387 bytes length at the end of 30 April (a 66,739 byte reduction in the page, about 60.6% less). Excluding extremes, the longest wait for someone's GAN to be review was about 11.5 weeks at the beginning. (I mistook the figure when I reported to the Signpost that it was 13.) At the end, with the exception of one that was relisted, the longest wait is now at 10 days. 63 different users participated, each having completed at least one GAN, with others also having helped out behind-the-scenes in making the drive a success. The drive started with 463 GA nominations remaining and 388 unreviewed. At the end of the month, we ended with 89 remaining (374 or about 80.8% less) and 47 unreviewed (341 or about 87.9% less). For those who have accomplished certain objectives in the drive, awards will be coming shortly. Again, thank you for your help in the drive, and I hope you continue to help review GA nominations and overall improve the quality of articles here on Wikipedia.

–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 17:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Pulveroboletus bembae

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Amanita exitialis/GA1

Hi, I have made a few comments regarding your GA nomination at Talk:Amanita exitialis/GA1. Thanks, Xtzou (Talk) 17:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources for Bog Turtle

Would you please provide the sources I cited on the Bog Turtle FAC to NYMFan69-86? They include: [1], [2], [3], and [4]

I'm not sure if you can access them all, but hopefully so. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I just sent #1; #2 and #4 have already been sent in a previous batch; and #3 is a PhD thesis that is 42 MB long. Still thinking about the email logistics of that last one. Sasata (talk) 00:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Mycena californiensis

Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Special Barnstar
		Awarded for all your help with the entire Bog turtle group! NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, but it was my pleasure! I'm glad I could be a small part of your outstanding efforts to help raise public awareness about a little endangered turtle. You've no doubt learned skills from this school assignment that will help you with your future academic endeavors. Cheers, Sasata (talk) 04:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Resources

Do you have any useful websites to provide better resources for species/genus to help create initial stubs, or is most of that info only available through libraries, and if so do you have any suggestions for books? I'd like to provide more info in creating an initial page then a very basic stub like this one Pseudohydnum. Any assistance/guidance would be helpful, as I'd like to put some time into the Wikipedia:WikiProject Fungi beyond just uploading images... — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 04:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Hmmm... where to start. As you've found out, Index Fungorum and MycoBank are best for extracting basic taxonomic information like classification, and synonyms. MycoBank, bless their souls, give complete bibliographic information, making it easier to document the full taxonomic history. For some taxa, they also give the original description. One book I use everyday is the Dictionary of the Fungi (10th ed, 2008), which in the case of genera-level taxa and higher, give estimates of the number of taxa and their general distribution. In the case of species, both a regular web search and a Google book search usually give some useful information. There's about 15-20 field guides indexed in Google books that regularly come up, and I've got all of their bibliographic information in citation templates already stored on a text file, so I can just copy and paste whenever I need to. You should be able, in most cases, to build healthy stub/start-class articles using this approach. To go much beyond this will require access to an academic database (or a visit to a university library), as a lot of information is stored away in journal articles. I'd be happy to help with this; if you find an article from Google Scholar or someplace you think would be helpful, drop me a line and I'll see if I can access it and email it to you. Speaking of uploading images, I just bought this and a macro lens, so you'll be seeing me back at FPC soon (once I learn how to use the thing)! Sasata (talk) 04:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I have access to an academic library, not sure how complete their journals are but I presume they have online access to most... I'll check them out. Don't think I'm going to be buying Dictionary of the Fungi and the closest one I can find in a library is 3 hour drive and can't be checked out. :D Might have to figure something else out there.. lol. Online resources are a good start though. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 06:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Latest (and greatest) WP:FOUR awards

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Coprinellus micaceus.

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Mycena haematopus.

With these two awards you become the new standard bearer at WP:FOUR with a total of ten. Carry the torch well.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Tony, I will try not to drop the torch on my foot and start a fire :) Sasata (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Now here's a challenge...

Another I am working on is this --> Banksia scabrella - which Ucucha and I have found very little or none studies. If you can find any at all I'd be gobsmacked (and grateful!) Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I checked, and there's not much... posted on the talk page. Sasata (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Amanita exitialis

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Chess stuff

Hey mate! Two bits of news for you: First, I've been making steady progress on Tigran Petrosian, but I'm not really sure what to do with the Olympiad section. I figure that match list should be merged into a larger list of all of his matches, then there can just be a smaller section discussing his participation in the Olympiad. The problem is that I don't have any complete lists of Petrosian's matches—all of the book sources I have access to were written while he was still alive and playing. What would you suggest?

Second, I created Book:Chess openings and I thought you might be interested. I tried to organize it in the most logical way possible, but it could definitely use a second look. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Cryptic! I'm afraid I haven't done anything yet on the article, still letting it ferment in the back on my mind. Having done some reading, it seems Tigran didn't really contribute a whole lot to opening theory (other than the Petrosian variation), so it will be challenging to expand this section much more than what's there now. However, I'm working on a section that will show some of his famous exchange-sacs, for which he was well-known. About the Olympiad results, is there any compelling reason not to just merge this into a complete listing of his tournament & match results, and just add a paragraph or three of text to describe the highlights? Anyway, I will start working on this , as it's non-committal and then we can play with the formatting once the data is there. I can fill in any missing results using my database; I'll comment out any OR until I can find a print source for his later results.

I was only peripherally aware that there were articles on all these openings. I laughed when I saw that lines like the Jerome Gambit and the Monkey's Bum has the same list-space as, say, the French defence! Sasata (talk) 07:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Aye, but the good thing is that the more sound lines (French, Sicilian, etc.) tend to have both longer articles and more supporting articles, so there's no need to worry about the reader being led to believe that the weirder lines (e.g. Frankenstein-Dracula Variation) should actually be taken seriously. As for Tigran, I'll try my hand at adding the match results that I do have, though some of them are written in a format that I don't quite understand. Oh well, if I screw it up I'm sure you or someone else will swing around to fix it. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Image

Do you know of any good websites that I could use to find free use images? Joe Chill (talk) 02:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Assuming you're talking about fungi, you need not go any further than Mushroom Observer; just make sure that the images you upload are licensed Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 (most are), and not Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0. Good luck! Sasata (talk) 14:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sasata. You have new messages at Esuzu's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DYK for Sarcosphaera

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Linnaeus

Hey!You wrote the sentence "Sami people, reindeer-herding nomads who wandered Scandinavia's vast Arctic tundras." I was just wondering, I'm no geographic expert but as far as my knowledge goes Laplapd/Scandinavia has no tundras. Did Scandavia have tundras on Linnaeus time? Esuzu (talk • contribs) 06:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm no expert either, but the Tundra articles states: "The polar tundra is home to several peoples who are mostly nomadic reindeer herders, such as the Nganasan and Nenets in the permafrost area (and the Sami in Sápmi)." Sasata (talk) 14:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It might be correct but not necessarily mentioning the Sami in Lapland. There are Sami in Norway, Finland and other countries as well, the tundras they walk on might be in those countries. Lapland (region) states that only some northeastern parts are tundra. So perhaps we should choose another word just in case. (By the way, great job on the copy-editing so far! Looks a lot neater) Esuzu (talk • contribs) 17:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the problem here. Lapland is in northern Sweden (part of Scandinavia); much of Lapland's geography is "barren, lifeless tundra"; Sami were formerly nomads, so they wandered around a lot... I don't see any factual inaccuracies with the statement as written? (Also, "Tundra is a Sami word used originally to mean the cold, treeless plain bordering the Arctic Ocean in Lapland.") Sasata (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well it mostly sounds strange to me, being a Swede, we have no tundras. Or at least I thought so :) On that map you showed Lapland is shown having the "boreal forest" climate. But then on the other hand the other book says it is a tundra. I think if we just remove the word "Arctic" it will be fine. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 19:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello! How are your work coming along on the Linnaeus article? Do you need anything? Esuzu (talk • contribs) 15:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Esuzu. As I started doing some reading, I figured it would be a good idea to buff up the daughter article Linnaean taxonomy article as well. I've printed out a small pile of journal articles that I'm reading through to bring me up to speed, but soon I will going on Wikileave for about 2 weeks; the pile will be coming with me :) Will resume work when I return. Sasata (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds lovely! Making the Linnaen taxonomy article better as well is probably a great idea as well. When you are back I hope to have some work done on the Commemoration section and Philosophical views section. Have fun on your wikileave! Esuzu (talk • contribs) 21:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Dendrocollybia

Materialscientist (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Fritz the Cat

I replied to your comments on the FAC page. Also, could you sign your posts like this: ~~~~? Otherwise, I cannot tell who the comments are from. (Sugar Bear (talk) 22:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC))

Mushroom dye

Rather interesting little article that popped up yesterday. I don't know if that's something you fancy giving a little expansion for a cool DYK? J Milburn (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi JM, thanks for the heads-up, but this is a little out of my range of interest, and I've currently got my plate full with three future FAC collaborations, in addition to current FACs and GAs, and reviews, and the ~100 articles on my hard drive I hope to get to GA quality in time for the last round of the WikiCup :) Sasata (talk) 17:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Epidermophyton floccosum

Thanks for you copyedits and finishing the taxobox. Joe Chill (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem; I'll probably take a longer look later and see if I can add anything. Sasata (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I find it quite odd that the article started out as a sentence when there is plenty of information to use online. Joe Chill (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Tremella

The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Sasata,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Polyporus squamosus Molter.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 30, 2010. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2010-05-30. howcheng {chat} 16:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Amanita bisporigera

Hello! Your submission of Amanita bisporigera at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 01:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm reading the article right now and gotta say the mention of A. magnivelaris under "Similar species" comes a bit randomly. I keep thinking that A. ochreata was meant, but it most likely wasn't... Circéus (talk) 02:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I made it better... chalk it up to another "error I don't see until I press the "Save page" button. Sasata (talk) 02:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I reworded it. Adding the info after only compounds the writing issue. Circéus (talk) 02:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK

I responded to your alt hook. Joe Chill (talk) 02:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 May newsletter

We are half way through round 3, with a little under a month to go. The current overall leader is Sasata (submissions), who has 570 points. He leads pool C. Pools A, B and D are led by Hunter Kahn (submissions), Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) and White Shadows (submissions) respectively. 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.

Two of last year's final 8, Theleftorium (submissions) and Scorpion0422 (submissions), have dropped out of the competition, saying they would rather their place went to someone who will have more time on their hands than them next round. On a related note, a special thank you goes to White Shadows (submissions) for his help behind the scenes once again. There is currently a problem with the poster, perhaps caused by the new skin- take a look at this discussion and see if you can help. The competition has continued to tick over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. Good luck to all! 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 and The ed17 20:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)